BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 247 of 2012
Date of Institution : 14.12.2012
Date of Decision : 2.8.2016
Mohan Lal s/o Sh.Har Dayal, r/o village Gabipur, tehsil Barwala distt.Hisar.
….Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Durga Mandir Road, Mandi Dabwali through its Branch Manager.
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…………MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that being registered owner of Tata-407 bearing registration no.HR-39B-1215, he got insured the vehicle comprehensively from the op-company vide policy no.111901311030002361195 w.e.f. 28.3.2011 to 27.3.2012. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 26.11.2011. Complainant informed the Op-company. Surveyor took the photographs and all the relevant documents were handed over to the surveyor. A letter dt. 26.7.2012 from the op-company received by complainant that he had lodged a claim with previous owner Sh.Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., which was repudiated as no insurable interest exists. Insurance company had confirmed that Mohan Lal is not eligible for claim and as such repudiated the claim. Moreover, it has been mentioned that one Harshvinder Singh s/o Sadhu Ram disclosed himself as Conductor on the vehicle and he had given a statement to the police that he is employee of Sh.Rakesh Kumar and the claim has been repudiated on the ground that Mohan Lal has no insurable interest. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on false pleas and arbitrarily. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op appeared and contested the case by filing written version. It is replied that complainant obtained the policy in question from the op by playing fraud as in the proposal form ‘Claim experience for last three years was shown as NIL, whereas on confirmation from previous insurer Sh.Ram General insurance, they confirmed that complainant has lodged a claim with them. It is also confirmed that complainant was not eligible for the claim bonus on renewal of insurance taken from the Op. It is further replied that from the contents of DDR no.34 dt.26.11.2011 of P.S.Odhan, it is clear that Conductor on the vehicle made a statement to police that he is employee of owner of the canter namely Rakesh Kumar. As such, complainant has no insurable interest. It is further replied that after final survey by the company and discussion and consultation with the insured as per consent, an amount of Rs.2,89500/-with damaged vehicle to be kept by the insured was agreed to be settled in full and final settlement of the claim, but amount has not been paid by the competent authority after going through the record and confirmation from the previous insurer. Ops further denied remaining contents of complaint.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Ex.C2, copy of DDR Ex.C3, copy of No Claim Bonus Certificate Ex.C4, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C5, copy of delivery challan/receipt Ex.C6, copy of registration certificate Ex.C7, copy of certificate of fitness Ex.C8, copy of Permit Ex.C9 and Ex.C11, copy of policy cover note Ex.C10, copy of authorization Ex.C12, copy of postal order Ex.C13, copy of application for information under RTI Ex.C14, Ex.C16, Ex.C19 and Ex.C20, copy of postal receipts Ex.C15, Ex.C17, Ex.C18 and Ex.C21 to Ex.C24. Whereas Op has produced affidavit of Sh.Santosh Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Jain, Surveyor Ex.R2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R3, copy of letter dt. 28.12.2011 Ex.R4, copy of application dt. 26.11.2011 Ex.R5, copy of motor claim intimation letter Ex.R6, copy of claim form Ex.R7, copy of RC Ex.R8, copy of verification of RC Ex.R9, copy of declaration dt.26.3.2011 Ex.R10, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.R11, copy of DDR Ex.R12, copy of surveyor report Ex.R13, copy of consent letter Ex.R14 and copy of policy Ex.R15.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. After hearing both the sides and going through the case carefully, we are of the considered view that plea of the ops regarding lodging of claim by the complainant with Sh.Ram General Insurance Company has no force because the said insurance has not paid any claim to the complainant with regard to the previous damage to the vehicle. This fact is also clear from the various documents produced by the ops including the affidavit of complainant Mohan Lal Ex.R11. The second plea of the ops regarding no insurable interest has also no force because in the various documents produced by the ops including copy of registration certificate of the vehicle Ex.R8, it is clearly established that Mohan Lal complainant was owner of the vehicle at that time. Moreover, Rakesh Kumar whose name is considered as owner of the vehicle by the insurance company has filed his affidavit Ex.C2 that Mohan Lal complainant is owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the base of no insurable interest taken by the insurance company on the basis of DDR lodged with regard to the alleged accident, has no force. As such, repudiation of claim on these grounds is liable to be set-aside and we order accordingly.
6. Now, coming to the loss suffered by complainant due to damage of vehicle, it is clear from affidavit of Branch Manager of the Op Ex.R1 that after surveyor report and discussion, insurance company came to conclusion to pay an amount of Rs.2,89,500/- with damage vehicle to be kept by the insured as full and final settlement. From the surveyor report Ex.R13 and affidavit of surveyor Mr.R.K.Jain Ex.R2, the amount of loss assessed was Rs.2,89,500/-. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the amount assessed by the surveyor is to be paid to the complainant with the condition of keeping the damage vehicle by the insured. Accordingly, Ops are directed to pay
Rs.2,89,500/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 14.12.2012 till realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation charges to the complainant. With these observations, complaint stands disposed off. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:2.8.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
