Haryana

Karnal

CC/153/2021

Sohan Vir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Megma HDI General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manjit Singh

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 153 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.15.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:18.03.2024

 

Sohan Vir aged about 45 years son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of village Barthal, tehsil Nilokheri, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Megma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st and 2^nd floor, sector-3, H.S.I.I.D.C. Industrial Estate, Karnal-132001.
2. Megma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Development House, 24 Park Street, Kolkata 700016.

       

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Manjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant had purchased a vehicle car make Toyota Etios VXD bearing registration no.HR-07-S-4914 from one Jasbir on 16.08.2019. The said vehicle was financed by its first owner from Megma Fincrop Ltd. and at the time of execution of agreement to sell, it was decided that the complainant will pay the remaining 26 monthly installments to the finance company. Since then complainant was/is in possession of abovesaid vehicle. As per the rules of the Government, the vehicle in question would not be transferred in the name of complainant, until and unless the remaining installments of loan are not paid by the complainant. In other words, after getting form 35 (No Dues Certificate) the complainant could not transfer the abovesaid vehicle in his name. Due to abovesaid reason, the vehicle in question was in the name of its first owner i.e. Mr. Jasbir, but the same was/is in possession of the complainant and the complainant time to time got insured the abovesaid vehicle from OPs by paying the premium amount. On 06.07.2020, the complainant further got insured the abovesaid vehicle from OPs by paying the premium amount of Rs.9478/- and OPs issued cover note/policy bearing no.P0121400002/4101/ 103743, valid from 06.07.2020 to 05.07.2021. On 26.12.2020, the complainant went to Bus Stand Nilokheri to bring his son Munish from his village Barthal, in the abovesaid car and while the complainant alongwith his son were returning back to his house and reached near village Sidpur, a vagabond cow (Neelgai), came in front of the vehicle due to which the vehicle of the complainant was imbalanced and struck into the bridge. Due to the said impact the vehicle of the complainant got badly damaged.  Intimation regarding the damage of vehicle was served to OPs and the surveyor of OPs inspected the vehicle in question and on the demand of surveyor, complainant submitted the necessary and relevant documents relating to the vehicle i.e. insurance policy, R.C., D.L. etc. and same were checked by the surveyor of OPs.  On perusal of said documents, the surveyor of OPs told the complainant that the formalities of documents of complainant is completed and complainant has to get the repair of the abovesaid vehicle using his own funds and assured that the insurance company i.e. OPs will disburse the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of said vehicle. On the assurance of surveyor of OPs, complainant got repaired the abovesaid vehicle from Jagdish Motor Workshop, Karnal and spent a huge amount of Rs.1,35,000/- in repairing the same and also spent Rs.2000/- for towing the damaged vehicle. As per instructions of Ops, complainant submitted the bills of repairing of vehicle to the OPs and requested to make the payment of claim amount but OPs started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to make the payment of claim amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.02.2021 to OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; territorial jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed by the OPs by way of appointment of Er. J.K. Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Karnal, who thoroughly investigated the claim of the complainant and submitted the detailed report dated 08.01.2021 and he found that the insured had sold the car to Sohan Singh due to hypothecation on car it could not be transferred in the name of complainant hence a power of attorney was given. The insurable interest does not stand if the car is sold and endorsement on policy. In this regard many letters dated 29.01.2021 and 25.02.2021, were written to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that the claim is not considered as Jasbir Singh had already sold the vehicle to the complainant on 16.08.2019 much before the supposed accident. Hence, the complainant does not have any insurable interest. Since the complainant failed to give a reply to the said letter and due to non-cooperation of the complainant, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 29.01.2021. It is further pleaded that there is a violation of condition no.1 and 8 of the insurance policy. Thus, the claim of the complainant is not payable as the same does not fall within policy condition. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of estimate Ex.C2, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C3, power of attorney Ex.C4, copy of agreement Ex.C5, copy of aadhar card of Jasbir Ex.C6, copy of RC Ex.C7, copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, copy of postal receipt Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 30.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harbhajan Singh working General Manager Ex.OW1/A, copy of repudiation letter dated 29.01.2021 Ex.OP1, copy of surveyor report dated 08.01.2021 Ex.OP2, copy of registration certificate of vehicle Ex.OP3, copy of verification of registration of vehicle Ex.OP4, copy of aadhar card of Jasbir Ex.OP5, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP6, copy of claim form Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 04.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 6.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 16.08.2019 complainant had purchased the car in question from one Jasbir. The said vehicle was financed by Jasbir being first owner from Megma Fincrop Ltd. The 26 installments of the said loan were paid by the complainant to the finance company. As per the rules of the Government, the vehicle in question will not be transferred in the name of complainant, until and unless the remaining installments of loan are not paid. Due to abovesaid reason, the vehicle in question was in the name of his first owner i.e. Mr. Jasbir, but the same was/is in possession of the complainant. On 26.12.2020, the said car met with an accident and was badly damaged. On receipt of intimation, the surveyor of OPs got inspected the vehicle and complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the surveyor. The complainant got repaired the abovesaid vehicle from Jagdish Motor Workshop, Karnal and spent an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. Complainant submitted the bills of repair to the OPs and requested to make the payment of claim amount but OPs did not pay the same after repeated visits and requests and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the surveyor of the OPs Er. J.K. Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Karnal thoroughly investigated the claim of the complainant and submitted his report dated 08.01.2021 and  found that the insured had sold the car to complainant due to hypothecation on car it could not be transferred. The insurable interest does not stand if the car is sold and endorsement on policy. Many letters were written to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that the claim was not considered as Jasbir had already sold the vehicle to the complainant on 16.08.2019. Complainant failed to reply the said letter and for non-cooperation of the complainant, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 29.01.2021 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contention of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the owner of the car in question is Jasbir Singh and complainant has purchased the said car from Jasbir. It is also admitted that at the time of Registration Certificate, insurance policy and other documents were in the name of Jasbir.

11.           The complainant has alleged that he has purchased the vehicle in question from Jasbir on 16.08.2019 and said vehicle was got financed by Jasbir from Megma Fincrop Ltd. As per the rules of the Government, the vehicle in question cannot be transferred in the name of complainant, until and unless the remaining installments of loan are not paid. To prove his case complainant has relied upon copy the power of attorney Ex.C4 dated 16.08.2019 and copy of Agreement Ex.C5 dated 16.08.2019 executed between Jasbir and complainant. Only execution of said documents do not mean that the complainant has become the owner of the vehicle and is entitled for the claim amount. It was Jasbir, who should have filed the present complaint instead of  the complainant.  

12.           Since the Registration Certificate and other documents of the vehicle are in the name of Jasbir. The present complaint neither filed by Jasbir nor complainant has impleaded Jasbir as a party to prove his case. The claim was duly investigated by the surveyor of the OP and he submitted his report Ex.OP2 dated 08.01.2021 and as per said report complainant has no insurable interest.

13.                 Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.03.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.       

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member