BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.

                                                                                  Complaint No.:223 of 2017.                                                                                            Date of Instt.: 07.09.2017.

                                                                                  Date of Order: 09.10.2018.

Jarnail Singh son of Jagrup Singh, resident of VPO Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office DSS 2, Town Centre, Backside Bus Stand, Bhattu Mandi, District Fatehabad through its Manager.

                                                                                                                …Respondent/OP

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:                                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                                              Sh.Jasvinder Singh, Member.

                                              Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

Present:                               Sh. H.S. Gill, Adv. for the complainant.

                                              Sh.  N.D. Mittal, Adv. for OP.

ORDER

                                                The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that he had purchased a vehicle make Scorpio Mahendra bearing registration no. HR-23E-333 from its registered owner Mandeep Singh, resident of village Haiderwala, District Fatehabad and registration of the same has been transferred by the Registering Authority, Fatehabad in favour of the complainant and the Registration Certificate of the aforesaid vehicle has been supplied to the complainant by the Registering  Authority, Fatehabad.  It is further submitted that the insurance of the aforesaid vehicle was standing in the name of the previous owner Mandeep Singh and as such in order to transfer the insurance of the aforesaid vehicle in his name the complainant moved an application dated 30.9.2016 to the OP to transfer the insurance of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of the complainant.  However, the officials of the OP demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for transfer of the insurance of the abovesaid vehicle in the name of the complainant and asked the complainant to come on Monday i.e. 3.10.2016.  However, thereafter the complainant could not visit the office of the OP for transfer of the insurance on account of unavoidable circumstances. 

2.                                             It is further submitted that on 6.10.2016, when the complainant  was going to Fatehabad on the aforesaid car and on way from Fatehabad to Tohana, the vehicle in question met with an accident and the same was got damaged. Regarding the accident the complainant gave intimation to the OP on the same day and the complainant was directed by the OP to get the vehicle repaired and then submit the bill along-with other relevant papers in the office of insurance company and thereafter the insurance claim of the complainant will be settled and the amount of damage of the vehicle will be paid to the complainant.

3.                                             It is further submitted that as per instructions of the OP the complainant got the damaged vehicle repaired from M/s Bathinda Motor Denting Painting Works, Budhlada Road, Ratia and Bansal Motor Store, Automobile Market, Hisar vide invoice no. 725 dated 18.10.2016 and invoice no. 715 dated 14.10.2016 and the complainant incurred the expenditure of Rs. 52,883/- for getting repair of the vehicle as per instructions of the OP.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted the relevant papers such as Registration Certificate, copy of Driving License and bill etc. in the office of OP and completed all the formalities.  At that time, it was assured by the OP that the amount of damage will be paid to the complainant within a short period.  It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OP several times and requested to make payment of the claim amount of damage, but the OP delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to make payment of the claim on the ground that on the date of accident the insurance of the vehicle was not in the name of the complainant.  It is further submitted by the complainant that he had applied for transfer of the insurance of the vehicle in question and the complainant was registered owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation.  The abovesaid act on the part of OP in declining the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him.  The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and the OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 52,883/- along-with interest and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence, the present complaint.

4.                                             On being served the OP appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to  maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of material facts  have been raised.

5.                                             In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant never gave any intimation of the alleged accident to the insurance company.  As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant/insured was bound to give intimation of the accident in writing immediately to the insurance company.  However, the complainant did not give any intimation regarding the abovesaid loss suffered by his vehicle.  It is further submitted that had the complainant given any such intimation, the insurer would have registered the claim and would have assessed the loss from the independent surveyor and the insurance claim would have been settled as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Therefore, the complainant has no actionable claim against the OP as no intimation regarding the alleged accident dated 6.10.2016 has been received by the OP.

6.                                             It is also further submitted that whenever  somebody purchases any insured vehicle, he is required to get the insurance transferred in his name within 14 days of the date of transfer failing which he will not be able to get benefit of the policy in case of damage suffered by the insured vehicle.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                                             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A and the documents as Annexure 1 to Annexure 3 and Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-3.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sachin Manchanda Branch Manager in evidence as Exhibit OPW1/1 and the document as Annexure R-1.

8.                                             We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question was purchased by him from one Sh.Mandeep Singh and ownership of the same was got transferred by the complainant in his name from the Registration Authority, Fatehabad. Since the insurance of the vehicle was issued by the OP as such for transfer of the insurance of the vehicle in question in his name the complainant had moved an application with the OP on 30.09.2016. It is also further the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 10.06.2016 and intimation regarding the same was given to the OP on the same date. Thereafter as per instructions of OP the complainant got the vehicle repaired and incurred an expenditure of Rs.52,883/-. However, the OP did not make payment of the above said amount to the complainant on the ground that on the date of accident the insurance of the vehicle in question was not got transferred by the complainant in his name. It is further the case of the complainant that the above said act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency and he is entitled for getting a payment of Rs.52,883/- from the OP along-with compensation.

9.                                             After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and examining the documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to him. A perusal of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure R-1) reveals that the insured was duty bound to give intimation to the insurer/ OP regarding the damage/loss caused to the insured vehicle immediately. However, in the present case the complainant has not placed on record any documents or evidence to prove that any intimation was ever given by him to the OP. The complainant has also not placed on record any document or evidence to prove that he submitted any claim with the OP for settlement of the same. Since the complainant has failed to prove that he has given intimation to the OP regarding the damage and has also failed to prove that any insurance claim was submitted by him with the OP as such we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP in dealing with the present matter. Otherwise also the complainant has not placed on record any evidence or document to prove that within a period of 14 days from the date of registration of the vehicle in question in his name he had submitted any application before the OP for transfer of the insurance of the vehicle in question in  his name. Therefore, as per provision of the Insurance Act, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for receiving the insurance claim from the OP.

10.                                          In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present case is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.            

Dated:09.10.2018

      (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                             President                                                                                                                                              (Jasvinder Singh)             (Rajni Goyat)                      

Distt. Consumer Dispute

                                                                 Member           Member                  

     Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.