State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Gen.Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kashmir Singh And Others on 13 July, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 534 of 2015 Date of Institution: 17.06.2015 Date of Decision : 13.07.2015 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, A-10-14, Indira Place, Near Gaurav Tower, Jaipur at present E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Appellant-Opposite Party No.1 Versus 1. Kashmir Singh s/o Sh. Dalel Singh, Resident of Village Kiloi Khas, Tehsil and District Rohtak (Haryana). Respondent-Complainant 2. Adroait Technical Services Private Limited 508, 5th Floor, Devika Tower, Chandan Nagar, Gaziabad, U.P. through its Director. 3. Vidhya Insurance Hub, SCO-18, Ground Floor Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak, through authorized agents for Shri Ram General Insruance Company Limited. Proforma Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member Present: Shri Vinod Kumar Arya, Advocate for appellant.
O R D E R B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company)-Opposite Party No.1, is in appeal against the order dated May 7th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'District Forum'), Rohtak. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-
".....it is observed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs.17020/- (Rupees seventeen thousand twenty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly."
2. Kashmir Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) is owner of vehicle TATA Dumper bearing Registration No.HR-39B-0554. It was earlier owned by Pawan Kumar and was insured with the Insurance Company from October 29th, 2011 to October 28th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2). The vehicle was transferred in his name vide Registration Certificate Exhibit R-3. The complainant informed the Insurance Company of transfer of ownership and for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his favour. The Insurance Company got the vehicle inspected from its agent on April 4th, 2012 and also charged fee for incorporating complainant's name in the policy. The vehicle met with an accident on April 9th, 2012 and suffered damage to the extent of Rs.4,63,500/-. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss worth Rs.17,020/-. The claim being lodged was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter Exhibit R-6.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the Insurance Policy continued in the name of Pawan Kumar.
5. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.
6. The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant was that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as the Insurance Policy was in the name of previous owner Pawan Kumar.
7. It is undisputed fact that the complainant after purchase of vehicle from Pawan Kumar, had applied for transfer of the ownership with the Registering Authority and upon transfer of the ownership, he had applied to the Insurance Company for change of the Insurance Policy in his name within the stipulated period of 14 days. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Company had appointed its representative/surveyor for inspection of the vehicle who inspected the vehicle on April 4th, 2012. The Insurance Company in reply to para No.1 of the complaint admitted that the complainant after purchase of the vehicle had applied to the Registering Authority for transferring the vehicle in his name and after transfer of the vehicle, he also applied to the Insurance Company for change of the policy in his favour. If the Insurance Company did not make necessary correction in the policy, it cannot be permitted to say that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle.
8. The Insurance Company in para No.4 of the reply admitted that Sunny Goel was appointed as surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.17020/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent of the amount assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and not the amount claimed by the complainant.
9. In view of the above, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.11,720/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 (complainant) against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 13.07.2015 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL