Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 219
Instituted on : 21.05.2018
Decided on : 26.03.2024
Ramesh s/o Sh.Krishan age 55 years, Ro H.No.345, VPO BhanisruKhurd, District Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai-400059 through its Manager/Incharge.
- Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Manager/Incharge.
...........……Respondent/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Mukesh Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gourav Arya, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had insured his Ritz car bearing no.HR12V-9799 from the opposite party’s company for the period 02.03.2017 to 01.03.2018 vide policy No.2311/56966073/00/000. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 24.06.2017 on Jind Road, Rohtak and due to this accident, the car was damaged badly. The complainant informed the opposite party and submitted the claim with the respondents. The vehicle was taken to Maruti Show Room for repair. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties who assessed the loss. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.61341/- on the repair of the vehicle. Complainant has completed all the formalities as required by the respondents and their surveyor but till today the amount of claim has not been paid to the complainant. Complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to pay the claim amount but to no effect. The act and conduct of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the repair amount of vehicle i.e. Rs.61341/-alongwith interest @ 24% and also to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite partyNo.1 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of the claim intimation an independent IRDA approved surveyor Mr. sunny Goel was appointed to assess the loss as per the terms and conditions. The independent surveyor submitted his detailed report showing liability of the part of opposite party to an amount of Rs.61341/- but the amount assessed by surveyor was not paid as the complainant is having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of loss. . The complainant had already sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Ashwani Kumar s/o Ramesh Kumar R/o H.No.34/6, R/o VPO Beri Pana, Chuliyan, District Jhajjar for an amount of Rs.250000/- in January 2017 and since then Ashwani Kumar was in possession and control of the vehicle in question.Once the sale transaction has been completed there does not arise any cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint. The transfer of the vehicle is mere a formality after the sale transaction is completed. Hence the complainant was having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of loss. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party is only an insurance broking entitylicensed with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India(IRDA). The role of the opposite party being a facilitator, is to apprise customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance companies. After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and volition and pays insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only. The vehicle of the complainant has been insured by opposite party no.1. Hence only opposite party no.1 is answerable to the complainant for the alleged claim, if lawfully found due. Opposite party is not an insurance company to indemnify for the alleged loss or damage to the vehicle under the insurance cover. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/11 and closed his evidence on dated 21.01.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/2, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 and closed his evidence on 08.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/2 and closed his evidence on 03.03.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on dated 24.06.2017 and he spent an amount of Rs.61341/- on the repair of his vehicle. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. This fact has been mentioned in the written statement as well as in the affidavit. The investigation was also conducted by the investigator ‘Secure Risk Management & Insurance Services’ in this case. As per respondent insurance company the complainant has sold his vehicle to one Sh. Ashwani Kumar s/o Ramesh Kumar R/o H.No.34/6, R/o VPO Beri Pana, Chuliyan, District Jhajjar and the said Ashish paid an amount of Rs.250000/- to the complainant as a sale consideration. To prove this fact insurance company placed on record a photocopy of statement of said Ashish Kumar and also placed on record affidavit of investigatorSh.Amandeep, Partner of Secure Risk Management & Insurance Services as Ex.RW1/2. As per our opinion, the respondent insurance company failed to place on record any authentic or legal document as like agreement, affidavit of sale, copy of passbook to prove the sale consideration etc. and to prove the fact that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Merely a photocopy of the statement or affidavit of investigator cannot be believed. Moreover the insurance company also failed to establish the identification of said Ashwani s/o Ramesh Kumar R/o VPO Beri. Surveyor has not attached any authentic identification proof of Ashwani e.g. driving licence, Aadhar Card etc. Moreover, R.C Ex.CW1/5 and insurance policy Ex.R1/1 are still in the name of complainant Ramesh. In this regard, we have perused the authority of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in 1(2022)CPJ 52(Del.) in case titled as IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil &Anr. whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that : “Where Registration certificate and Insurance is not transferred by original owner in favour of person to which it has been alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, Original Insured person remains “Owner” for purposes of Motor Vehicles Act and claim is maintainable with respective Insurance Company-When claim was raised with appellant, Registration Certificate and Insurance was in name of Respondent no.1 and he was entitled to raise claim with Appellant-Repudiation not justified”. Moreover in the above mentioned authority the Apex Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited reported at II(2020) CJ80(SC)=IV(2020) SLT 252= II(2020) ACC386 =AIR2020SC3149 has also been discussed in para no.8(54): “In view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of Motor vehicles act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Illiyas Ansari”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such complainant is entitled for the insurance claim as assessed by the surveyor and mentioned in the written reply filed by the opposite party No.1 amounting to Rs.61341/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.61341/-(Rupees sixty one thousand three hundred and forty oneonly) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.05.2018 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
