Haryana

StateCommission

A/1060/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

YATISH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :      1060 of 2015

Date of Institution:     10.12.2015

Date of Decision :      08.11.2016

 

 

 

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional No.II, 2^nd Floor, Narain Complex, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Yatish Kumar son of Sh. Yashpal Singh, resident of House No.119, Village and Post Office Singhpura Kalan, Rohtak-Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

 

 

 

 

Argued:                Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellant

                             Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the complainant

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated October 26^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Yatish Kumar-complainant was allowed.  Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.4,52,322/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, November 25^th, 2014 till realization and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by him.

2.      A car bearing registration No.HR12T-7576 owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period July 10^th, 2013 to July 09^th, 2014. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.4,52,322/-. On February 08^th, 2014, the car was stolen. The Police of Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, Rohtak registered F.I.R. No.58 on February 08^th, 2014. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum.

3.      The solitary submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the car was sold by the complainant to Pawan Kumar before the date of theft.  The certificate of registration and insurance policy were not transferred in favour of Pawan Kumar.  So, the complainant was not entitled for the benefits of insurance. 

4.      The contention raised is not tenable in view of the fact that Pawan Kumar in his statement (Exhibit R-5) recorded before the Surveyor stated that his cousin, that is, Yatish Kumar-complainant had handed over his car to him meaning thereby that the complainant did not sell his car to Pawan Kumar. It is not in dispute that on the date of theft, the complainant was the registered owner of the car and the insurance policy was also in his name.  In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ram Chandra Dhobi, III (2008), CPJ, 287, it has been held that since registration certificate and insurance policy were in the name of transferee/complainant, he was entitled to the benefits of insurance. The Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability by merely stating that the car was already sold by the complainant to Pawan Kumar.  The complainant cannot be deprived of the benefits of insurance.  The insurance policy was issued in favour of the registered owner of car, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant in whose name the insurance cover stands.  Insurance Companies are denying the claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

5.      For the reasons recorded supra, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 08.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

   UK