Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/13/2024

ASHOK CHADHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JK NARANG

11 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.

:

13 of 2024

Date of Institution

:

08.01.2024

Date of Decision

:

11.06.2024

 

Ashok Chadha son of late Sh. Sat Dev Chadha, resident of 731, Sector-12, Panchkula

   …Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorised representative, Divisional Office : SCO No.123-124, Sector 17B, Chandigarh (U.T).

IInd address :

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorised representative, registered and head office : 24 Whites Road, Chennai 600014.

….…..Respondent/opposite party

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

 

Present:- 

Sh.J.K. Narang, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

 

                   The appellant (complainant) has filed this appeal for modification of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.444 of 2022 filed by him was partly allowed as under:-

“….In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

  1. to pay ₹2,46,919/- to the complainant (as claimed by the complainant and assessed by the surveyor) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 5.3.2023 (i.e. when the complainant submitted the cancelled RC with the OP) onwards.
  2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amount, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above....…”

  1.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that he was the registered owner of a Tata Manza car bearing registration No.HR-26F-0020 and got the same insured from the opposite party vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) valid for the period from 7.8.2015 to 6.8.2016.  On 21.1.2016, when the said car was being driven by Varinder Chadha, nephew of the complainant, the same met with an accident regarding which DDR No.18 dated 21.1.2016 (Annexure C-2) was recorded with Police Chowki, Sector 21, Panchkula.  In the said accident, the car was total loss and accordingly claim form (Annexure C-3) dated 9.2.2016 was submitted by the complainant with the opposite party. The said claim of the complainant was approved by the opposite party vide approval letter dated 23.8.2016 (Annexure C-4), subject to cancellation of RC thereof.  However, due to health issues of the brother of the complainant, death of father of the complainant, heart surgeries of the complainant and also due to the fact that the complainant and his brother were detected COVID-19 positive, the complainant could not submit the documents required by the opposite party.  In the meanwhile, in the month of January 2021, the complainant purchased a new car namely Hyundai i20 sportz and as he wanted to retain the registration No.HR-26F-0020, he applied to the Registration Authority for the transfer of the said registration No. of the subject car to the newly purchased car. Accordingly, registration No.HR-26F-0020 was assigned to the aforesaid newly purchased car and the new registration No.HR-70D-0198 was assigned to the subject car. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party vide letter dated 1.2.2021 (Annexure C-11) intimating about the said change of registration No. of the subject car, but the same was not replied by the opposite party. The complainant also reported his grievance to the grievance committee of the opposite party vide application (Annexure C-13), but the same was rejected vide letter (Annexure C-14). Subsequently, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman for the redressal of his grievance, but the same was rejected vide order dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure C-15). However, the opposite party had acknowledged the approval of the claim of the complainant even on 1.2.2021, but did not settle the claim on the ground that the claim was allowed for the subject car bearing registration No.HR-26F-0020 and not for registration No.HR-70D-0198. Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
  2.           The complaint was contested by the opposite party and it filed written version, wherein it took numerous objections  regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint; that the complainant has concealed facts; that the complaint is barred by limitation etc.  However, it was admitted that the subject car was insured with the opposite party at the relevant time of accident and claim was lodged by the complainant.   It was also admitted that the claim of the complainant was approved by the opposite party subject to submission of cancelled RC of the subject car, which has not been done by the complainant till date. It was stated that the complainant had earlier approached the Insurance Ombudsman with the request to direct the opposite party for cancellation of registration No.HR-26F-0020 which has been assigned to the subject car, enabling him to get the registration cancelled, but the said complaint of the complainant was also dismissed by the said authority. 
  3.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those, contained in the written version of opposite party.
  4.           The contesting parties led evidence before the District Commission.
  5.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. 
  6.           Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant for modification of the order impugned and a request has been made that he be awarded interest @12% p.a. on the claim amount from the date of its approval i.e. 23.08.2016 instead of 05.03.2023 awarded by the District Commission.
  7.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record very carefully and also the written arguments.
  8.           The short question which needs to be decided by this Commission is, as to whether, the appellant/complainant is entitled to get any relief, over and above the relief already  awarded by the District Commission or not?

                   The only relief which has been sought by the appellant in this appeal is that he shall be awarded interest @12% p.a. on the claim amount from the date of its approval i.e. 23.08.2016 instead of 05.03.2023 awarded by the District Commission. It may be  stated here that  it has not been disputed by the appellant that  the claim was approved by the respondent vide letter dated 23.08.2016, Annexure C-8 subject to submission of cancelled  Registration Certificate, qua the vehicle in question which stood declared total loss in the said accident. Significantly, it is also not in  dispute between the parties that the cancellation registration certificate dated 27.02.2023 of the vehicle in question was supplied by the appellant to the  respondent, for the first time, vide letter dated 05.03.2023, Annexure C-18. Thus, it is clearly coming out from the record that though the appellant was directed by the respondent vide letter dated 23.08.2016, Annexure C-8 to submit the cancelled  Registration Certificate from RTO concerned, yet, he got cancelled the same only on 27.02.2023 (Annexure C-17) and supplied copy thereof to the respondent on 05.03.2023 (Annexure C-18). In our considered opinion, there is a violation of condition no.55 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, by the appellant, which says that if a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority concerned and shall forward to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. Relevant part of the said condition no.55 (1)  is reproduced hereunder:-

“……..55. Cancellation of registration.—(1) If a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle….”

Under above circumstances, if the appellant himself was at fault, in  getting the registration certificate cancelled after a huge delay and supplied the same to the respondent only on 05.03.2023, then the findings of the District Commission to pay interest on the claim  amount of Rs.2,46,919/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 5.3.2023 onwards cannot be faulted.

  1.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, partly allowing the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and did not need interference of this Commission. 
  2.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
  3.           Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of, accordingly.
  4.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
  5.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

11.06.2024

 

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Rg.

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.