The complainant Sikander Singh, (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Hydraulic Pick N Crane Regd. No. PB-03-AA-7712 from Sukhpal Singh and its R.C was duly transferred in his name being registered owner. Opposite party at Bathinda though Indusland Bank being the agency holder, approached the complainant for renewal of the comprehensive insurance of the Hydra on 11.6.2017.
It is alleged that as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders's Interests) Regulations, 2002, opposite party took the proposal form bearing No.M21755927 for the insurance of Hydraulic Pick N Crane alongwith copy of R.C from complainant. Opposite party duly covered the Hydra as M21755927. Copy of the insurance certificate bearing No.M21755927 was duly issued after charging Rs.14,501/-.
It is alleged that on 6.6.2018, the vehicle of the complainant at about 7:00 P.M met with an accident at flyover, Jind. The complainant duly informed opposite party, it appointed spot surveyor Mr.Sunil Jangra, he surveyed the vehicle on 7.6.2018. Under the instruction of opposite party and its surveyor, the complainant shifted the vehicle at M/S Kewal Crain Service, Gobindgarh. The complainant approached at Bathinda office with Indusind Bank of opposite party regarding loss, it issued insurance certificate-cum-policy of one Page No.3380/00874883/000/02. Thereafter the vehicle was shifted at Bathinda for repair. Opposite party appointed Mr.Mahesh Chander as final surveyor.
It is further alleged that the vehicle was repaired under the instructions and supervision of opposite party and its surveyor Mr.Mahesh Chander. After repair, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,33,205/- from his own pocket. Original bills of repairer and challan of parts are already supplied to opposite party through its surveyor. The complainant purchased parts and get the vehicle repaired in July 2018 under intimation to opposite party, but the shopkeeper issued the bill of parts in October 2018 when the complainant paid an amount of Rs.54,705/- as the shopkeeper M/s Bombay Tractor Co. sent the parts through challan dated 22.7.2018 to the repairer under instructions of the complainant and surveyor.
The complainant has further alleged that on 13.7.2018, he sent registered letter to opposite party and demanded the spot and final survey reports and other insurance papers, but opposite party did not provide the same till date. After that opposite party illegally sent letter dated 10.7.2018. In this regard the complainant again sent letter dated 7.8.2018, but till date opposite party neither replied the same nor provided him documents. The complainant received one letter dated 10.7.2018 through registered post on 2.8.2018 from the office of opposite party vide which it illegally rejected the claims of the complainant on illegal grounds that 'at the time of accident, the policy has not been transferred in his name. In view of these establishment facts, it is concluded that you are not having any Privity of contract with the insurer at the material time of accident' and issued the illegal 'No Claim' letter with illegal ground.
It is also further alleged that 'No Claim' letter is totally illegal and against the facts as the Insurance was purchased in the name of complainant as R.C was duly changed in his name prior to the insurance and covernote proposal is also issued in the name of the complainant and insurance certificate was also issued as per proposal covernote and not on the basis of any other paper and if there is any fault in the insurance certificate, it is fault of opposite party and it has no relevancy with the complainant. Opposite party never provided any terms and conditions to the complainant. it did not supply the copy of the spot and final survey reports till date. To support his pleading, complainant has quoted case law, reference of which is not necessary at this stage.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to pay Rs.2,33,205/- on account of loss of the vehicle and amount of Rs.27,500/- as charges of shifting and to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @18% p.a. from 6.6.2018 till payment in addition to Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses of complaint.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complainant by filing written version. Opposite party filed written version and raised legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Commission and opposite party. As such, he is not entitled to any relief.
It is pleaded that the complainant has concealed the facts that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party. He has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint and claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated on the ground of non insurable interest as the policy stands in the name of Sukhpal Singh. As per Section 157(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, the policy has to be got transferred in the name of the owner within 14 days of purchase alongwith application in prescribed form and necessary fee that has not been done. If this Forum comes to conclusion that the complainant is entitled to any claim, in that case, he is entitled to Rs.93,500/- as assessed in the final survey report. The complaint is not maintainable and complainant is estopped from the filing the complaint by his act and conduct. The complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite party and complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question alongwith insurance. The complainant did not submit the policy for transfer in his name within 14 days of purchase alongwith application in prescribed form and necessary fee. Opposite party deputed Mr.Mahesh Chander as surveyor, he conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.93,500/- after applying depreciation and other provisions as per terms and conditions of the policy vide report dated 22.6.2018. It is denied to that opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,33,205/- on acount of loss or Rs.27,500/- on account of shifting charges or any interest from 6.6.2018, rather the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Singh dated 25-10-2018 (Ex.C-1) and photocopy of other documents are (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhishek Nigam dated 17-12-2018 (Ex.OP-1/1), photocopy of documents (Ex.OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3) and affidavit of Mahesh Chander Sharma dated 02.02.2022 (Ex.OP-1/4).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
Admitted facts of this case are complainant is the registered owner of Hydrolic Pick N Crane bearing registration No. PB-03-AA-7712 and the same was insured with opposite party for a period of 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018. IDV of the vehicle is Rs.9,00,000/-. It is also admitted that after vehicle met with an accident claim was filed with opposite party and the same was repudiated by opposite party.
Ex. C-15 is the letter dated 10.07.2017 vide which claim filed by complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that “on a careful perusal of the claim documents, it is inferred that at the material time of accident the policy has not been transferred in your name. In view of these established facts, it is concluded that you are not having any privity of contract with the insurer at the material time of accident”.
Ex. C-7 is the motor policy schedule cum certificate of insurance. Perusal of this policy reveals that this policy is issued in the name of complainant and period of insurance is from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018 and further contract No. written as CN-2632347. Ex. C-2 is the proposal form No. M-21755927 dated 11.06.2017. Perusal of this document further reveals that int his document name of insured is mentioned as Sikander Singh S/o Pirthi Singh (complainant) and contract No. is mentioned as CN-2632347. So, joint perusal of Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-7 reveals that policy (Ex. C-7) is issued on basis of proposal form (Ex. C-2).
Opposite party mainly place reliance on document Ex. OP-1/3 (Six pages). Perusal of first page of Ex. OP-1/3 reveals that this is motor insurance claim form and name of insured is mentioned as Sikander Singh (complainant) and name of driver is mentioned as Sukhpal Singh. Further opposite party produced another policy of vehicle in question for the same period i.e. 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018 as Ex. Op-1/3 (page 6) and in this policy name and communication address is mentioned as Sukhpal Singh S/o Gurtej Singh. Further perusal of this document reveals that this policy is shown to be issued on the basis proposal form dated 11.06.2015. But opposite party has not brought on file said proposal form dated 11.06.2015. Further we are of the view that nobody will deposit premium 2 years prior to purchasing policy. Moreover, in insurance policy relied upon by opposite party (Ex. OP-1/3 page 6) shows that in this policy contract number is also written as CN-2632347 which is the same as written in proposal form dated 11.06.2017 (Ex. C-2) as well as in policy (Ex. C-7) relied upon by complainant. It seems that policy relied upon by opposite party is prepared just for self serving purpose and to deny claim of complainant.
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Usha Yadav 2008 (3) RCR Civil 111 has observed that: “Cash rich Insurance company indulging in luxury litigation to repudiate claim of the Insured – It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claim”.
Thus, keeping in view facts, circumstances, evidence placed on file and aforesaid settled law, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant.
Hon'ble National Commission in case of Narinder Kumar Joshi Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited IV 2017 CPJ 366 (NC) has observed that the insurance claim is to be settled on the basis of surveyor report unless legitimate reasons are pointed out for not accepting the surveyor report.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the claim amount as assessed by surveyor.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay to complainant claim amount of Rs. 93,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. dated 10-07-2018 till realization.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
