State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. vs National Insurance Co.Ltd on 17 December, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/12/921
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/07/2012
in Case No. CC/08/151 of
South Mumbai District Forum)
M/s.Bagalkot Udyog Ltd.
Director-Mr.Suresh Sharma
Air
India Building
14th floor,Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
AND
Regd.off.at Stadium House, Block No.1
6th floor, Veer Nariman Road
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020
...........Appellants
Versus
1. National Insurance Co.Ltd
Through the Regional Manager
12, Jamshedji
Tata Road
Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020
2.The Divisional Manager
Division 8, United India Building
3rd floor, Sir P M Road
Mumbai 400 001
...........Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE Mr.
Justice R.C.Chavan President
HON'ABLE Mr.Dhanraj
Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar Advocate for the appellant
Mr.Sanjay
Krishnan-Advocate for the respondent
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai dismissing consumer complaint no.CC/08/151 filed by the appellant/org. complainant. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-
The complainant is a company carrying on business of manufacturing cement and had purchased amongst others a Ford Ikon Car bearing no.MH-01-GA-9144. This car was insured with the opponent company on the date of accident i.e. 24/12/2006. The complainant lodged the claim with the opponent on 04/01/2007. However, the opponent repudiated the claim observing that the vehicle stood in the name of M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. and, therefore, the claim could not be honoured. After failing to get any positive response from the Customer Grievance Cell of the opponent, complainant filed the said complaint claiming a sum of Rs.3,64,142/- towards the loss caused on account of accident, Rs.21,045/- towards parking charges levied by the garage where the car was sent for repairs, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards costs.
The opponent filed written version opposing the complaint stating that the vehicle stood in the name of M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. and, therefore, the complainant had no right to claim compensation and that the repudiation of the claim was proper.
After hearing the rival contentions, Forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, appellant is before us.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and with the help of both we have gone through the material on record. Though the vehicle was undoubtedly purchased by M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. and, therefore, stood in the name of M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd., there can be no doubt that the name of M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. itself came to be changed to M/s.Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. A fresh certificate of incorporation in the changed name was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Companies on 19/10/2005. Copy thereof has been placed on record. On 08/12/2005, the opponent company received intimation about change of name of the company sent by the complainant M/s.Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. as can be seen from the acknowledgement on the copy of letter dated 05/12/2005. The policy in question for the period from 30/04/2006 to 29/04/2007 was issued by the opponent company obviously on 30/04/2006 or around that time i.e. after the intimation of change of name of company was received by the company on 08/12/2005. The policy shows the name of the insured as M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. After receipt of intimation, the company ought to have issued the policy in the name of M/s.Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. We would take the policy to be in the name of complainant company.
This however takes us to the second aspect of the matter, namely, that the vehicle still stood in the RTO record in the name of M/s.Kanoria Industries Ltd. This in our view is immaterial. The case at hand is not one of the transfer of vehicle from one owner to another. It is a case of change of the name of the owner itself and, therefore, failure to record the changed name in the registration book would not be material. We find that the forum took a hyper technical view of the matter and upheld an unjust repudiation of the claim by the opponent/Insurance Company.
This takes us to the question of the compensation to be paid to the complainant. It appears that surveyors had been appointed by the Insurance Co. and M/s.Sharma and Company had filed their survey report stating the Liability on Net Loss basis as Rs.1,25,000/-. The surveyor had in fact assessed the loss at Rs.1,96,000/- and proposed deduction of Rs.1000/- towards excess clause and had thus quantified the loss at Rs.1,95,000/-. Surveyor had alternatively suggested cash loss settlement and then had come to the sum of Rs.1,33,734/-. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the vehicle is still lying with the appellant company in a derelict condition, which the opponent company may take if it wants. He submitted that the compensation must be fixed on the basis of total loss and, therefore, wanted entire compensation claimed to be awarded.
We however find that as per surveyors report loss has been quantified at Rs.1,95,000/- and, this is the amount, which the opponent company would be liable to pay. In view of this, we would allow the appeal partly as indicated below:-
ORDER Appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned order is set aside and substituted by the following :-
Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
Opponent Insurance Company shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim i.e. 04/01/2007 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant together with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Upon realization of the amount, as ordered, the complainant shall return salvage to the opponent-Insurance Company.
Pronounced on 17th December, 2014.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.