Haryana

Karnal

CC/692/2019

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Kamboj

18 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.692 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 09.10.2019

                                                        Date of decision:18.01.2021

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Babu Lal resident of House no.526 Gali no.14, Basant Vihar, Karnal.

…….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

1. National Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional office at Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

2. National Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch office at Karnal through its Branch Manager.

      …..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.              

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Rajesh Kumar counsel for complainant.

                Shri Manjul Mishra Advocate for opposite parties.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the owner of a Honda Activa bearing registration no.HR-05AJ-3512, which was got insured by Ashok Biblani from opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to OPs), vide insurance policy no.42603311710001381, which was valid upto 03.08.2018. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.28000/-. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle from Ashok Biblani son of Radhey Sham and he got it transferred in his name from the Registering Authority, Karnal on 24.05.2018. He also sold his right of insurance policy to the complainant.  On 05.06.2018 the said Honda Activa of the complainant was stolen from bus stand, Karnal qua which an FIR no.2018 dated 05.08.2018 was registered under section 379 IPC in the Police Station City, Karnal. After the theft of his vehicle, complainant intimated the OPs and requested to pay the claim. Complainant also completed all the formalities and submitted the relevant documents with the OPs and OPs assured the complainant the insurance benefit will be given within 2 months but till date same has not been given despite repeated requests made to the OPs. In the month of June, 2019 the OPs told the complainant that his claim has been repudiated by their Chandigarh office, vide letter dated 27.05.2019 but the complainant has not received any kind of alleged letter. The complainant sought information from the OPs under the RTI which was supplied to him on 20.08.2019. On perusal of the same it has been revealed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant has not got transferred the insurance policy in his name from the name of previous owner. The said plea taken by the OPs null and void and not binding on the rights of the complainant because in the present case the vehicle is insured and not the owner of the vehicle and the OPs have to indemnify the loss of the stolen vehicle and not of the owner. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on 14.06.2019 as the policy covering the involved vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the complainant and the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft as per the insurance clause. It is further pleaded that the occurrence has been took place on 05.06.2018 and the claim form has been submitted in the insurance company on 05.06.2019 and intimation regarding theft has been given on 21.01.2019 which is violation of terms and condition no.1 of the policy. It is further pleaded that complainant has not supplied required documents besides given various reminders dated 14.08.2018 and 16.01.2019. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Registration Certificate of Ashok Biblani. Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of receipt Transport Department Ex.C3, copy of registration certificate of complainant Ex.C4, copy of proof of delivery of RC Ex.C5, copy of FIR Ex.C6, copy of RTI application Ex.C7, copy of RTI reply Ex.c8, copy of RTI information given by insurance company Ex.C9 and copy of repudiation letter Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2020, vide his separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak Administrative Officer Ex.O1, claim intimation report Ex.O2, claim form Ex.O3, insurance policy Ex.O4, Registered AD dated 16.01.2019 Ex.O5, Registered Ad dated 14.08.2018 Ex.O6, repudiation letter Ex.O7 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2020, vide separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant in brief, is that, he is the owner of a Honda Activa bearing registration no.HR-05AJ-3512, which was got insured by Ashok Biblani from OPs. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle from Ashok Biblani. On 05.06.2018 the said Honda Activa of the complainant was stolen from bus stand, Karnal qua which an FIR was registered. After the theft of his vehicle, complainant intimated the OPs and requested to pay the claim but OPs did not pay the claim and repudiated the same on the ground that the complainant has not got transferred the insurance policy in his name from the name of previous owner.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs in brief, is that, vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the complainant and the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft as per the insurance clause.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the policy.  As per written version of the OPs, there were delay for submitting the claim and intimation regarding the incident. But on the other hand, as per format for investigation report for Motor theft/snatching claims Ex.C9 it has been specifically mentioned by the OPs that there was no delay for intimating the incident. Thus, OPs did not stand on their legs and have taken double pleas in this regard.

9.             Claim of the complainant has been repudiated by OPs, vide repudiation letter dated 14.06.2019 Ex.O7 on the ground that the insurance policy covering the above vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of theft of the vehicle in question.

10.           The complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from Shri Ashok Biblani and he applied for transfer the ownership of the vehicle on 24.05.2018 before the State Transport Department Karnal, it has been proved from the vehicle particulars Ex.C3. As per the proof of delivery Ex.C5 of R.C. of vehicle, the Registration Certificate after change the name of the complainant delivered on 11.06.2018. Incident took place on 05.06.2018. As per the guidelines for registration transfer, the complainant has 14 days to transfer the policy in his name but in the present case before receipt of Registration Certificate of vehicle, the vehicle in question was stolen during the pendency of the transfer of the ownership in the name of the complainant. Hence there is no fault on the part of the complainant. In view of above discussion, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the complainant which proved otherwise genuine one. The Insured declared value (I.D.V.) of the vehicle in question is Rs.28,000/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.28,000/-  i.e. Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense  This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Complainant is also directed to get transfer the RC of the vehicle in question in the name of concerned insurance company. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 18.01.2021                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

      Member                               Member