Haryana

StateCommission

A/401/2018

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VIRENDER POULTRY FARM AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.401 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 03.04.2018

Date of order: 21.03.2023

 

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Chintamani Avenue, Off Western Express Highway, Near Virawani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-40063, through its Authorised Signatory, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 145-146, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      M/s Virender Poultry Farm, VPO Khokhri, Tehsil & District Jind, Haryana-126102, through its Proprietor Sh. Virender son of Sh. Manphool, resident of village Khokhri, Tehsil & District Jind.

2.      Ms. Vertika, House No. 988/17, Ward No. 23, Kaushik Nagar, Jind, Haryana-126102.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Respondent No. 1 already exparte.

Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.401of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 27.02.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind(In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.61 of 2016, which was partly allowed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant got insured his Mahindra XUV 500 W84X2 with opposite party (OP) No. 1 w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017 against IDV value of Rs.9,42,271/-. On 29.01.2016 the vehicle of the complainant got damaged extensively being involved in an accident. Complainant informed OP No. 1 who appointed a surveyor to inspect the site and to assess the loss resulted to vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle was shifted to agency at Sirsa with the help of crane and it was again shifted to Jind and got repaired from Lekhraj Auto Plaza, Rohtak Road, Jindincurring Rs.4,17,989/- and Rs.8,000/- as crane charges. Complainant submitted claim with the OP No. 1 but vide letter dated 27.02.2016 OP No. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle as prior to the date of accident the vehicle was purchased by Mr. Ravinder.Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., hence the complaint.

3.      In its written version, OP No. 1 submitted that on the day of loss complainant was not owner of the vehicle as he had already sold the vehicle to one Ravinder about an year ago with balance loan amount payable by the purchaser directly to the financer HDFC Bank, Hisar and also given statement in writing to investigator in this regard. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by OP No. 1 vide letter dated 27.02.2016 according to terms and conditions of the policy.Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      In its written version, OP No. 2 submitted that OP No. 2 insured the vehicle of the complainant being agent of OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Jindhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 27.02.2018, which is as under:-

“Accordingly, we have no option except to allow the present complaint with a direction to Op No. 1 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.4,17,988/- (Four Lac Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight only as paid by complainant to Lekh Raj Auto Plaza vide receipts Annexures C-4 to C-6) to the complainant alongwithsimple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date after making a deduction of Rs.13654.34 ps. On account of Net Salvage amount as assessed by surveyor in his report (Annexure R1/2) and statutory deductions as per terms of policy from the aforesaid awarded amount.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) in lump-sum as compensation on account of causing mental harassment as well as costs of litigation etc. incurred by the complainant.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant himself admitted that he sold the vehicle to Ravinder about one year prior to the accident with balance loan amount payable by the said purchaser directly to the financer HDFC Bank, Hisar and this fact came to its knowledge during the investigation. Surveyor appointed by appellant assessed the net loss of Rs.1,69,711/- after considering the estimate amount of Rs.3,26,014/-. Appellant/Insurance company and insured are governed by terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the insured has already sold his vehicle prior to accident, so there was no insurable interest of complainant in the vehicle on the day of accident. Appellant has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.02.2016 according to terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued thatcomplainant is the registered owner of the vehicle which was got damaged in accident. The vehicle was got repaired from authorized dealer and Rs.4,17,988/- has been incurred on the repair of the same.Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

10.              It is admitted case of both of the parties that complainant gotinsured his vehicle from OP No.1 against IDV value of Rs.9,42,271/- which met with an accident on 29.01.2016. It is also admitted that complainant informed the OP No. 1 which inturn appointed surveyor to assess the lossresulted to the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant sold his vehicle to Ravinder, so on the date of accident complainant was not owner of the vehicle. Perusal of RC (Annexure C-10) shows that vehicle stand registered in the name of Virender Poultry Farm which was the complainant. Appellant failed to prove on record that complainant sold the vehicle to Ravinder. Infact neither the contents of FIR nor the statement recorded by investigator happens to be substantive evidence. Moreover FIR is also not encyclopedia so as to include everything.  Even otherwise also it has been settled to rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that who so ever is found to be the owner mentioned in the registration certificate, he or she is to be treated as owner of the vehicle concerned.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission has committed no illegality while passing the order dated 27.02.2018.  The appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of order: 21stMarch, 2023

 

 

 

 

                        (Suresh ChanderKaushik)                       (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K.

(Pvt. Secy.)