Haryana

StateCommission

A/923/2019

UIIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKAS DALAL - Opp.Party(s)

VANDANA MALHOTRA

02 Dec 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.923 of 2019

Date of Institution:18.10.2019

Date of decision:02.12.2019

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Jawahar Market, Model Town, near D-Park Delhi road, Rohtak, Haryana (through its authorized signatory, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO123-124, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Vikas Dalal S/o Sh.Ram Kumar R/o Village Chiri Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

There is a delay of 08 days in filing the appeal, which is condoned in the interest of justice.

2.      The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and directed the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.455500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.03.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  Complainant is also directed to apply for the cancellation of R.C. before the Registration Authority.

3.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that he is registered owner of Hyundai Xcent Car bearing registration No. HR 47 D 6564, which was insured with opposite party. The insurance was valid from 28.04.2016 to 27.04.2017 for a total value of Rs.5,31,000/-.  Unfortunately, on 19.04.2017, the vehicle met with an accident.  Intimation was sent  to the office party. Surveyor was appointed, who surveyed the vehicle and declared total loss.  Claim filed, but, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 22.11.2017 on false grounds.  He never sold the vehicle to anyone.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      Upon notice,  opposite party contested the complaint and alleged that upon intimation, two surveyor was appointed and they submitted their detailed report with settlement of the claim on Net Salvage Basis for an amount of Rs.455500/- without getting the vehicle transferred in the name of the company and subject to the retention of the salvage of the damaged car by complainant, without transfer of RC and deduction of excess clause, subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  The O.P. also appointed an independent surveyor, who submitted his details report, vide which vehicle was initially purchased by Vikas Dalal, but in March 2017  the vehicle in question was sold by complainant to Pawan Kumar S/o Lakshmi Narayan.  The complainant was not having insurable interest.  The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 22.11.2017.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.08.2019 and granted relief is mentioned in para No.2 of the order.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of the appellate file had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      The only ground on which the claim was repudiated by appellant- insurance company is that at the time of accident respondent-owner had no insurable interest as the vehicle involved in the accident was already sold by him one Sh.Pawan Kumar.  However, this contention of the appellant regarding repudiation of the insurance claim is without any basis because the record available in the appellate file reveals and has also mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum that there was only a
GPA issued by respondent-complainant in favour of one Sh.Pawan Kumar mentioning therein to manage, supervision and to look after his vehicle on his behalf.  This document clearly shows that vehicle in question was not sold at all to one Pawan Kumar, but, it was simply handed over to Pawan Kumar for the purpose of looking after.   Even as per registration certificate Ex.C1/R11 and insurance policy Ex.C2, the car is still in the name of Vikas. Since the vehicle involved in the accident was standing in the name of respondent-complainant-Vikas Dalal then it can be safely concluded and rightly so observed by learned District Forum that the claim was wrongly repudiated by the appellant-insurance company despite affidavit of surveyor Ex.RW1/B that a consent letter of settlement of claim on net salvage basis for a amount of Rs.4,55,500/- has been submitted by registered owner to the appellant company.

9.      As a sequel to above discussion, it can be safely concluded that we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and no interference is warranted for. Appeal is without merits, hence, stands dismissed in limine.

10.    Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the opposite party while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant-Vikas Dalal against proper receipt and identification subject to decision of the appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

02nd  December, 2019      Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)