Haryana

Karnal

CC/286/2015

Amit Kumar S/o Anoop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

national Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kundi

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                Complaint No.286 of 2015

                                                 Date of instt. 20.11.2015

                                                 Date of decision: 06.09.2017

 

Amit Kumar Mann son of Anoop Singh resident of village Ghogripur, District Karnal.

             

                                                                    ………….Complainant.     

                                   Versus

 

1. National Insurance Company, Divisional Office no.10, Flat no.101-106, N-1, BMC House, Connought Place New Delhi 110001.

2. National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, Santokh Market, Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                         

                                                       ………..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……. President.

               Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

               Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

             

 

 Present     Shri Vishal Kundi Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri L.S.Lote Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:

 

              (Jagmal Singh President)

                    

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a Maruti Swift LDI car bearing registration no.HR-05-AA-7664 from one Amit Kalra through a car dealer on 1.11.2013. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties till the midnight of 17^th July, 2014. Insurance policy was transferred in his name on 5.6.2014. He initiated the process of transfer of Registration Certificate from the seller to himself immediately after the purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle was under hire purchase agreement by the previous owner with State Bank of Patiala, Panipat. It was only after the NOC was obtained from the financing bank that the Registration Certificate could be transferred. His father Shri Anoop Singh went so many times to the Motor Vehicle Authority to collect the Registration Certificate in February, March and April, 2014. Firstly, the official of the Motor Vehicle Authority told that the RC has not been transferred in his name. Lateron, in the month of April, official told that the RC was misplaced. It has been further pleaded that before he could receive the transferred RC and get the transfer of insurance policy completed in his name, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 4.5.2014.  The vehicle was taken to the Maruti authority workshop for accidental repairs and total bill amount for repair of the vehicle was Rs.77,507/- out of which Rs.20,589/- on account of clause and depreciation which were to be borne by the complainant and the remaining Rs.56,918/- were to be paid by the insurance company/OPs, but the opposite parties did not pay any claim to him and informed that his claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 30.7.2014  which was addressed to the seller, Amit Kalra as the vehicle Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy was in his name at the time of the accident. It has been further pleaded that he received the Registration Certificate after transfer on 28.5.2014, thereafter, the insurance policy was also transferred in his name on 5.6.2014. The delay in handing over the Registration Certificate due to the fault of the official of the Motor Vehicle Authority who had misplaced the RC and could not locate it earlier. The reason given by the opposite parties for repudiating the claim of the repairs of the vehicle is vague, unjustifiable and against the settled principles of law. The opposite parties have no right to repudiate the claim till the expiry of the policy. Due to this act of the opposite parties complainant and the seller of vehicle jointly filed a complaint before this Forum which was decided, vide order dated 17.10.2014 by which opposite parties were directed to settle the claim. Opposite parties again repudiated the claim and refused to pay the remaining amount. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability and concealment of true and material facts have been raised. On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties and it was also admitted by the complainant that car was in the name of Amit Kalra at the time of accident and the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle. Hence, there was no insurable right and the opposite parties were not liable to pay any compensation. It  has further been pleaded that Amit Kalra and Amit Kumar Mann had filed a complaint no.273 of 2013 and the same was disposed off vide order dated 17.10.2014.

The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated on the ground that the accident took place on 4.5.2014 and the insurance policy was transferred on 5.6.2014 i.e. after the date of accident and the claim was not maintainable. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.           In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and document Ex.C1 to C5 have been tendered.

4.           On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Ankur Garg Assistance Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP15 have been tendered.

5.           We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.           From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a Maruti Swift car bearing registration no.HR-05-AA-7664 from one Amit Kalra through a car dealer on 1.11.2013. The vehicle in question was duly insured with the opposite parties from 18.7.2013 to 17.7.2014. The vehicle was under Hire Purchase Agreement by the previous owner with State Bank of Patiala, Panipat and after obtaining the NOC from the said bank, the complainant initiated the process of transfer of the Registration Certificate. During this process, the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.5.2014 and at that time the vehicle was in the name of previous owner namely Amit Kalra. Thereafter, the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant and after that the insurance was got transferred in the name of complainant on 5.6.2014. It is admitted by the opposite parties that Amit Kalra, the previous owner and the present complainant had filed a complaint no. 213 of 2013 and the same was disposed off vide order dated 17.10.2014 with the observation as under:-

“the claim was filed by Amit Kalra and the same was rejected for want to insurable interest. However, since the present complaint has been filed by the subsequent purchaser, but the subsequent purchaser Sh. Amit Mann has not lodged the claim before the opposite parties, therefore, the subsequent purchaser Amit Mann who was acquired insurable interest is directed to lodge the claim before the opposite parties and the opposite parties shall settle the claim within a period of 30 days.”

Thereafter, the present complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties and the same was also repudiated by the opposite parties, vide their letter dated 31.8.2015 Ex.C4 on the ground that the accident took place on 4.5.2014 and the insurance was transferred in his name on 5.6.2014 i.e. after the accident. So, the complainant has no insurable interest and the claim was repudiated. Now, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

7.           As already stated above that there is no dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 18.7.2013 to 17.7.2014 as is clear from Ex.O5. Regarding the accident in question the previous owner has also filed the claim, but the same was repudiated and the claim of the purchaser of the vehicle i.e. present complainant has also been repudiated by the opposite parties. The owner of the vehicle is not insured rather the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties and in case the vehicle met with an accident, the opposite parties are duty bound to compensate the loss, if any, occurred to the vehicle in the accident. In the present case the vehicle was purchased by the complainant and during the transfer of the Registration Certificate, the vehicle in question met with an accident. When the accident took place the vehicle was insured with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim lodged by both the owners i.e seller the previous owner and the purchaser subsequent owner.  The insurance company has to indemnify the losses of the vehicle but in the present case the opposite parties have saved itself on technical ground. Moreover, it is clear from the previous order dated 17.10.2014 of this Forum vide which it has been held that the subsequent purchaser Amit Kumar has acquired the insurable interest but inspite of that the insurance company has stated that Shri Amit Mann the subsequent purchaser has no insurable interest. Therefore, the act of the opposite parties is in repudiating the claim of the complainant is against the finding of the Forum. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

8.           Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.56,918/- to the complainant subject to the condition that the complainant will submit an undertaking of the previous owner that he will not claim the amount from the opposite parties regarding the loss in question. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The order be complied with within 30 days after submitting the undertaking of previous owner, failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 6.9.2017                                                           

                                                               President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

       (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

        Member              Member