Haryana

Karnal

CC/31/2016

Romi S/o Ved Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goyal

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No.31 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 27.01.2016

                                                      Date of decision:11.04.2018

 

Romi son of Shri Ved Pal, resident of village Rajound, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office : 3, Middleton Street, Post Box no.9229, Kolkata-700071.

2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhanwant Building, G.T. Road, opposite Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Vishal Goel Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Munjal Mishra Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                     

 

                         (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased Maruti Swift Desire VDI, month and year of manufacturing 2/2013, colour white, bearing registration no.HR18B 3030 from Parvinder Singh son of Shri Jagsher r/o Rajound, Kaithal on 26.02.2015 but the certificate of Registration of Motor Vehicle was issued in the name of the complainant by the Registration Authority, Kaithal on 3.4.2015. Shri Sushil Kumar son of Bhagwan Ram was registered owner of the abovesaid card and the same was got insured from OP no.1 from Rewari office from 6.2.2014 to 5.2.2015. The said Sushil Kumar sold the vehicle to Parvinder Singh, who got transferred the RC in his name from the Registration Authority, Kaithal and RC was issued in his name on 23.1.2015. The said Parvinder Singh got the vehicle insured from OPs no.1 and 2 from 6.2.2015 to 5.2.2016.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 7.3.2015 and was damaged due to accident. An FIR bearing no.123 dated 8.3.2015 under section 279/337 in Police Station Sadar Karnal has been registered regarding this accident.  As the abovesaid vehicle was in the name of Parvinder Singh on 7.3.2015 i.e. on the date of accident and the complainant had not received the registration certificate of the vehicle in his name and the complainant was not having any proof regarding his ownership on the date of accident. The insurance cover note was also in the name of Parvidner Singh from 6.2.2015 to 5.2.2016 so insurance claim was lodged through Parvinder Singh, as the same was also advised by the insurance agent of OPs.  The Registration Certificate of Motor Vehicle was issued in the name of complainant by the Registration Authority, Kaithal on 3.4.2015 much after the date of accident. Vide letter dated 9.9.2015 the OPs have repudiated the insurance claim lodged through Parvidner Singh on the ground that date of accident was 16.3.2015 and on 26.2.2015 the complainant was the owner of the vehicle in dispute and RC was transferred in the name of complainant on 26.02.2015 and it is also written in the latter that there is no insurable interest hence the claim is not maintainable. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for release of his genuine claim but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action; maintainability; deficiency in service and concealment of facts. The true facts are that the Maruti Swift Desire Car VDI bearing registration no.HR18B-3030 was transferred in the name of complainant on 26.02.2015 and Shri Parvidner Singh was not the owner of the vehicle in question on 7.3.2015 as per verification report of Registration Authority (MV), Kaithal dated 7.9.2015 hence Parvinder Singh was having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question after 26.2.2015. Hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated with respect to vehicle in question since he was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question as on 7.3.2015 as the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 26.02.2015 as per verification report of Registration Authority dated 7.9.2015. Hence there was 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 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 8.11.2016

4.             On the other hand OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak AO Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 23.2.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for 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 is that he has purchased a Maruti Swift Desire VDI, bearing registration no.HR18B 3030 from Parvinder Singh  on 26.02.2015. It is also alleged by the complainant that earlier the car was owned by one Sushil Kumar, who got insured the same from 6.2.2014 to 05.02.2015 and said Sushil Kumar sold the abovesaid vehicle to Parvidner Singh which was transferred in his name on 23.1.2015. Said Parvidner Singh got insured the said car with the OPs from 6.2.2015 to 5.2.2016. It is further alleged by the complainant that the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle was issued by Registering Authority on 3.4.2015 to him. The said car met with an accident on 7.3.2015, regarding the said accident an FIR no.123 dated 8.3.2015 under section 279/337 was registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal. The allegations of the complainant are that his claim regarding the accident has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs.

7.             According to the OPs Parvidner Singh has made the claim about the accident in question of the car bearing registration no.HR18B-3030 and the same has been rightly repudiated because said Parvinder Singh had sold the said vehicle to the complainant on 26.2.2015. This fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint that he has purchased the car in question on 26.02.2015 from Parvinder Singh. It is further contended that as per verification report from the Registering Authority (MV) Kaithal dated 7.9.2015, the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Romi( Complainant) on 26.02.2015. Therefore, said Parvinder Singh was having no insurable interest and the claim of Parvinder Singh has been rightly repudiated. It is further contended by the OPs that no claim has been lodged by the complainant with respect to the vehicle in question with the OPs.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 26.02.2015 from Parvinder Singh. The document Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 clearly indicates that the same was transferred in the name of complainant on 6.2.2015. So when the vehicle was transferred from the name of Parvidner Singh, then said Parvinder Singh was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle and said Parvidner Singh had no right to lodge the claim. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed no mistake in repudiating the claim of said Parvinder Singh regarding the vehicle in question.

 9.            According to the complainant, the OPs have wrongly repudiated his claim, whereas according to the OPs, the complainant has not lodged any claim regarding vehicle. Therefore, the onus to prove that the complainant has lodged the claim with the OPs was upon the complainant. The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file, vide which it can be proved that the complainant has lodged the claim with the OPs. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to prove that he has lodged the claim with the OP regarding the accident of the vehicle in question. Hence the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint being premature. However, the complainant is at liberty to file his claim about the vehicle in question within 30 days with the OPs from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in that eventuality, Op no.1 will settle the claim of complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the claim. 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:11.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member