| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 62 of 21.2.2018 Decided on: 8.10.2020 Sulekh Chand S/o Sh.Om Parkash,H.No.151/18, Railway Gate, Rabiran Mohalla, Kaithal presently residing H.No.432,Huda , Sector-20,Kaithal. …………...Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company ,Patiala Bypass Road, Samana, through its Senior Branch Manager. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Surinder Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant. Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Adv.counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sulekh Chand (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Co.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of car No.HR-08-N-1796.The same was insured with the OP under Private Car Package Policy for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-
- It is averred that on 21.3.2017, son-in-law of the complainant was coming from Gullha to Samana in the said car, which was being driven by Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Pawan Kumar. It is further averred that when they reached near village Bibipur, a car having blue light on its head come from back side and after overtaking the car of the complainant they stopped the same in front of the car of the complainant and three persons took away the car of the complainant forcibly by showing a revolver to them.
- It is further averred that immediately son-in-law of the complainant informed the police, who registered FIR No.45 dated 22.3.2017 U/s 382/34 IPC and 25,27,54,59 Arms Act. The police after investigation failed to trace out the car and resultantly got declared the car as untraced from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Samana, vide order dated 9.9.2017.
- It is further averred that the complainant also informed the OP who got signed various documents from him and his son-in-law on the pretext that these documents are required for early settlement of the claim but lateron rejected the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the car as he has gifted the car to his son-in-law.
- It is averred that the rejection of the claim is false and baseless as he is still the registered owner of the said car and has purchased the policy from the OP himself as owner in possession of the car and now the OP cannot wriggle out to pay the claim. The OP has issued the policy after verifying the facts of ownership of the vehicle. The investigator has issued a false report by recording the false statement of the son-in-law of the complainant. Due to rejection of the claim, the complainant suffered lot of harassment and mental agony. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer that he is entitled to Rs.3,30,000/- the sum insured alongwith interest @12% from the date of loss i.e. 21.3.2017; compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice, OP appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 11.1.2018, on the ground that the insured has got no insurable interest in the insured car bearing No.HR-08-N-1796, as he has gifted the car to Sh.Moti Ram his son-in-law and delivered the possession of the car without giving information to the OP, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint goes not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint which can only be decided by the Civil Court. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits , it is admitted that that the OP issued Private Car Package Policy for car No.HR-08-N-1796, for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017, in the name of Sh.Sulkeh Chand s/o Sh.Om Parkash R/o 151/18, Railway Gate, Rabaria Mohalla, Kaithal, for a sum of Rs.3,33,000/-(written in para No.1 of the complaint).
- It is alleged that on receipt of intimation of loss the OP immediately deputed M/s Vee Bee Investigation Agency, Patiala to investigate the case, who submitted its report on 24.4.2017 and found that the complainant made statement alongwith his son-in-law to the effect that the insured has gifted the car alongwith possession to his son-in-law. It is further stated that the insured has also executed duly sworn and attested affidavit dated 1.11.2017 to the effect that the insured car has been gifted away to Sh.Moti Ram alongwith possession.The said statement is duly signed by the owner and his son-in-law and one of their relation clearly admitting the fact of gift of car with possession. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C2 copy of RC, Ex.C3 copy of FIR, Ex.C4 copy of order of JMIC, Samana, dated 9.9.2017, Ex.C5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C5 copy of FIR and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Harpreet Singh, Branch Manager, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.H.S.Bedi, Investigator alongwith documents, Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the registered owner of the car in question and the same was got insured for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 21.3.2017 son-in-law of the complainant was coming from Gullha to Samana in the said car, which was being driven by Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Pawan Kumar. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that when they reached near village Bibipur, a car having blue light on its head come from back side and after overtaking the car of the complainant stopped the same in front of the car of the complainant and three persons tookaway the car of the complainant forcibly by showing a revolver to them.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that FIR No.45 was registered on 22.3.2017 U/s 382/34 IPC and 25,27,54,59 Arms Act.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant immediately informed the OP but it wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim. As such the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim was already repudiated vide letter dated 11.1.2018 on the ground that the insured has got no insurable interest in the insured car as he has gifted the said car to his son – in –law namely Moti Ram, so it was rightly rejected.
- To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he deposed as per his complaint. The repudiation letter is Ex.C1,the only ground in this letter is that the FIR was lodged by Moti Lal claiming to be the owner of the car and Moti Lal has also given this statement on 8.4.2017 to surveyor. It is also mentioned in this letter that the complainant has given affidavit that he has gifted his car to his son-in-law, so on this ground the claim was rejected.
- The registration certificate of the car in question is Ex.C2. It is in the name of Sh.Sulekh Chand.The FIR in question of P.S.Sadar, Samana, Ex.C3 is under Section 382/34 IPC & 25,27,54,59 Arms Act. Ex.C4 is the untraced report, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat cum JMIC(Duty).Ex.C5 is the insurance policy, issued by the OP.
- In reply to para no.1, of the written statement, it is clearly stated that the OP has issued Private Car Package Policy of the vehicle bearing No.HR-08-N-1796 for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017 in the name of Sh.Sulekh Chand , for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- but the liability is denied. So the insurance policy is admitted by the OP in its written reply. In the copy of affidavit Ex.OP4 of Sulekh Chand, he has clearly deposed that he is the owner of the car in question and has given his car from his own will to his son-in-law Sh.Moti Lal and the car is insured with United India Insurance Co. and the car was forcibly taken away on 21.3.2017.
- So admittedly, when the car in question was insured with the OP and was stolen, on the basis of which the FIR was duly got registered with P.S.Sadar,Samana. On this ground the insurance company has wrongly repudiated the claim.
- The insurance companies are for the social justice and on the baseless ground it has rejected the claim when it has accepted the whole of the insurance policy amount from the insurer.
- So due to our above discussion, the repudiation of the claim, which was repudiated vide letter, Ex.C1 is illegal and cannot stand in the scrutiny of the law. Accordingly the complaint is accepted with the direction to the OP to pay Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 21.3.2017 till realization. The complainant is also held entitled to the costs of Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.
Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:8.10.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
