Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,91,676/- along with 12% interest to opposite party no. 4.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is having Hyundai Verna car bearing registration no. BR – 01AF – 6300 which met with an accident on 28.05.2011 near Kochas on Ara – Mohania high way. The aforesaid accident occurred because the aforesaid car dashed with Neelgai and at the time of aforesaid accident the complainant along with his family members was going to Vindhyachal temple for holy purpose. At the time of aforesaid accident, the aforesaid car was driven by complainant himself who was having valid driving license.
It is further case of the complainant that at the time of aforesaid occurrence the vehicle was insured with Universal Sompo General Insurance vide policy no. 2311/50832142/00 which was effective for the period from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2011 under private car package policy. The aforesaid car was earlier registered before D.T.O., Patna in the name of M/s Sai Tele Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and name of its user was specifically mentioned as Siyawar Saran Singh who is complainant. Later on, the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred specifically in the name of complainant with effect from 22.02.2011 as will appear from annexure – 1 and 1/A. After the occurrence, the complainant immediately informed opposite parties ( insurance company) and the aforesaid damaged car was brought to Patna on truck in the workshop of opposite party no. 4 which is authorized service center of Hyundai.
It is further case of the complainant that after receiving information of accident, the opposite parties (insurance company) deputed Mr. Kaushal Kishore Tripathy surveyor and loss assessor to survey and assess the loss. Thereafter all of a sudden the aforesaid surveyor was replaced by another surveyor namely Engineer Sajay Kumar without assigning any reason or any information to the complainant. This was done after three months had been lapsed and thereafter complainant immediately represented against such action to opposite parties (insurance company) vide annexure – 2.
It is further stated that after examining the vehicle service center (opposite party no. 4) expressed opinion that the vehicle cannot be repaired unless and until the body and chasis of the vehicle is replaced. This fact was also discussed between the complainant, surveyor and workshop incharge although the second surveyor Engineer Sanjay Kumar was against the technical opinion of the workshop and compelled the workshop to dismantle the vehicle and then repair it. This fact is also proved from annexure – 3. The surveyor Engineer Sanjay Kumar thereafter advised the complainant to deposit Rs. 155/- i.e. endorsement fee for transferring the complainant name in the insurance policy and accordingly vide cheque dated 22.06.2011 the name of the complainant was transferred in the aforesaid insurance policy as will appear from annexure – 4. As stated above, when after dismantling, the vehicle became ready after repair for delivery the total repair cost comes to Rs. 2,91,676/- and credit invoice dated 10.01.2012 for Rs. 2,91,676/- was prepared by opposite party no. 4 and the copy of said credit invoice was given to opposite party (insurance company) as well as complainant as will appear from annexure – 5 series.
The grievance of the complainant is that after completing the entire above mentioned procedure the opposite party (insurance company) is sitting tight over the matter without settling the claim of the complainant and the workshop will start charging rent for retaining the vehicle for a long time.
On behalf of complainant an application for interim relief was filed with a prayer to allow the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle in question after paying the repair charge from opposite party no. 4 during the pendency of present complaint petition which will be subject to final decision of Cosumer Forum. The aforesaid prayer of the complainant was allowed by this forum vide order dated 19.07.2012 with consent of opposite party (insurance company).
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 3 a counter affidavit cum written argument has been filed stating therein that after perusal of material on record the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 02.04.2012 as will appear from annexure – A.
In Para – 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit following facts have been asserted, “it is not out of place to mention here that the ownership of the offended vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 19.02.2011 and policy was in the name of Sai telecom Engineering Pvt. Ltd., R.T. Bhawan, Punaichak, Patna. In this view of the matter complainant did not here a insurable interest between this opposite parties on the date of an accident i.e. on 28.05.2011.”
“after an accident on 28.05.2011, the policy has been transferred in the name of the complainant on 22.06.2011 i.e. after 120 days approx from transfer of ownership of the offended vehicle in the name of the complainant.”
It has been asserted that as per Section 157(2) of M.V. Act 1988 the transferees have to apply within 14 days in prescribed form to the insurance for incorporating the name of transferee in the insurance certificate.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed, in Para – 7 of which the following fact have been asserted, “on 22.06.2011 the insurance company after taking application and requisite fees to the tune of Rs. 166/- through an account payee cheque from Siyawar Sharan Singh during the period of claim on the pretext of processing the claim speedily and paying the claim amount directly into the account of Siaywar Sharan Singh.”
“And even otherwise, being one of the Director of Sai Tele Engineering Ltd. the complainant Siyawar Sharan Singh was all the time in this world was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question. The Sai Tele Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vide its letter dated 03.06.2011 also certifies that Siyawar Sharan Singh holds position as a Director of the company since 2007 and still continuing.”
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The occurrence is admitted. It is also a fact that after three months the company had replaced the earlier surveyor and another surveyor Engineer Sanjay Kumar has been deputed who has supervise the repair work and as per his direction the repair work of the vehicle in question was conducted after dismantling the same. It is also a fact that after filing of this complaint case, the claim of complainant was repudiated. The only ground of rejecting the claim of the complainant is that insurance company has been informed about the change of ownership not within 14 days from the date of transfer of the ownership but the same has been done after 120 days.
It goes without saying that the vehicle in question was earlier registered in the name of M/s Sai tele Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and the name of the complainant finds place in that registration as a user. The complainant got the transfer of ownership in his own name but the fact remains that earlier he used to use the vehicle as a user. The second thing is that after paying requisite fee the name of the complainant was entered in the insurance policy though after some delay. It is also a fact that it was the opposite party (insurance company) who had appointed surveyor and as per instruction of surveyor Engineer Sanjay Kumar the vehicle was dismantled and repaired and now after taking so much steps and at the fag end, the company cannot change attitude because the company is bound by the theory of “Estoppel”. The very fact that after filing of this complaint the opposite party no. 1 to 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant reflects the bias of the opposite party no. 1 to 3 towards the claim of the complainant.
For the reason stated above we find and hold that by repudiating the claim of the complainant the opposite party no. 1 to 3 have committed grave act of deficiency of service because the claim has been repudiated after taking super technical attitude while this complaint case was pending in this forum.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite party no. 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 2,91,676/- ( Rs. Two Lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six only) to the workshop ( opposite party no. 4) within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 to 3 will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 2,91,676/- ( Rs. Two Lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six only) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member Member(F) President
