Haryana

StateCommission

A/614/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

USHA KHERA - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No: 614 of 2015

First Appeal No:      1016 of 2012

Date of Instt:24.08.12/19.08.2015

   Date of Decision:       14.01.2016

 

1.     The New India Assurance Company Limited Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager (Legal).

2.     The New India Assurance Company Limited Grand House, G.T. Road, Karnal.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Usha Khera wife of Dr. Madhukar Khera, Resident of House near D.M. High School, Des Raj Colony, Panipat, District Panipat.

 

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of opposite parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated July 17^th, 2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.124 of 2005.

2.      Usha Khera-complainant/respondent, purchased a new car bearing chassis No.MAJAXXMRTA2U43411,        Engine No.2U43411, Model IKON 1.6 SXI NXT, vide Sale Invoice dated 13^th February, 2004 (RW1/B) from Kanav Motors Private Limited, that is, the authorized dealer of Ford Ikon.  At the time of delivery, the dealer got the car insured, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3, with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period February 13^th, 2004 to February 12^th, 2005. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.6,54,445/-.

3.      On August 20^th, 2004, the husband of respondent alongwith his friend Surinder Chhatwal, was enroute to Delhi in the above said car. When they reached in the area of Ganaur, they parked the car on the road side and went to ease in the fields and when returned found that the car had been stolen. F.I.R. No.148 (Annexure-12) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Ganaur, on August 21^st, 2004. The Insurance Company was informed. The claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the sum insured to the respondent. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The appellants/opposite parties, in their reply pleaded that on the date of theft, vehicle bearing engine & chassis No.2U44341 was insured with them vide cover note No.0495661 for the period February 13^th, 2004 to February 12^th, 2005. It was also stated that the respondent had purchased the demonstration Ford Ikon Car model 2002 from Kanav Motors Private Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal. The said car was delivered to Kanav Motors through invoice No.F2-23976/2002-2003 dated 30^th June, 2002 by Ford India Limited as a demo car and Kanav Motors had not got registered the car in 2002 with any registering authority. As per the written understanding, the Insurance Company have supplied the book of cover note of insurance to Kanav Motors for issuing the cover note of Insurance at the time of sale of new vehicles. In the case in hand, the Kanav Motors had issued two cover notes bearing No.0495658 (Exhibit RW1/B) and 0495659 (Exhibit RW1/C) showing engine and chassis No.2U43411 and 2U44341 respectively. Said cover notes were cancelled by the Kanav Motors. Again a cover note bearing No.0495661 dated 16^th February, 2004 (Exhibit RW1/E) was issued wherein Engine and Chassis numbers were mentioned 2U44341. The husband of the respondent had given intimation regarding theft of the car to the Insurance Company on 8^th September, 2004 and before that Kanav Motors Private Limited had requested the Insurance Company vide application dated 27^th August, 2004 (Exhibit RW1/D) regarding correction of engine and chassis numbers in the cover note which was wrongly mentioned as 2U44341 whereas correct number was 2U43411. Accordingly, correction in the cover note was done and Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3 was issued. The Insurance Company at the time of doing the correction had mentioned that the change would be effective from the date of endorsement, that is, 27^th August, 2004. Since the vehicle had already been sold prior to the correction in the cover note, thus the Insurance Company denied its liability to pay the insured amount to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum order under challenge in this appeal, allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“…..We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.6,54,445/- to the complainant within 30 days failing which complainant will be entitled interest @ 8% from the date of announcement of this order till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified of Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite party to the complainant.”

6.      The Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No.1016 of 2012 before this Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 12^th October, 2012.

7.      Revision Petition No.119 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company was accepted by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 6^th July, 2015 and the case was remanded to this Commission to decide it afresh.

8.      Indisputably, the respondent had purchased the car from Kanav Motors Private Limited, Karnal on February 13^th, 2004. It is also not in dispute that the Insurance Company had authorized the dealer Kanav Motors to insure new vehicles on its behalf under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Annexure RW-1/A. Initially Insurance Cover Note Exhibit RW1/C was issued on February 13^th, 2004 insuring vehicle bearing Engine and Chassis No.2U44341. Later on it was pointed out that the engine and chassis number mentioned in the cover note were wrong, so the dealer corrected the engine and chassis number and issued Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3 wherein Chassis and Engine number was mentioned 2U43411.  

9.      The only plea raised was that the cover note initially issued carried engine and chassis No.2U44341, therefore, the vehicle of the respondent was not insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 10.        The contention raised is not tenable.  Since the dealer who was competent and authorized by the Insurance Company to insure the vehicles on its behalf by virtue of MoU and there being mistake in mentioning the engine and chassis numbers on the part of dealer, in the invoice and cover note, which was corrected and fresh cover note was issued by rectifying the mistake. Earlier the engine and chassis number was mentioned as 2U44341 and after correction it was mentioned as 2U43411. In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability merely because in the first cover note, engine and chassis number was different than in the second cover note. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the respondent. Thus, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.

11.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 

 

 

Announced 14.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL