National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance vs Parul Bala on 3 March, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 761 OF 2004 (From the Order dated 30.01.2004 in Appeal No. 229 of 2002 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS PARUL BALA RESPONDENT BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. VISHNU MEHRA , ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR. AMITABH VERMA & MR. Y.K. PRASAD, ADVOCATES. PRONOUNCED ON : 03.03.2009 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT United India Insurance Company Limited, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.
The Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) in Appeal No. 299 of 2002 whereby the State Commission has upheld the Order passed by the District Forum wherein the District Forum had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,97,600/-, treating the loss of the vehicle to be total along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of institution of complaint to the date of Order with cost of Rs.1,000/-. However, the complainant was directed to handover the salvage of the car, registration and other papers of ownership to the insurance company.
Shortly stated, the facts of the case are: -
Complainant/respondent purchased a new Cielo car for a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- from M/s Sardari Lal Oberoi and Company Private Limited, Dehradun. The advance insurance was got done on 29.10.1997 on payment of Rs.6,967/- on the same day. Engine number and chassis number were mentioned in the policy taken on 29.10.1997. Delivery of the car was taken on 02.11.2002 after completion of paper work, etc. Delivery was not taken on 29th, 30th, 31st of October, 1997 and on 1st of November, 1997, for the reason that one of the days happened to be Saturday on which the respondent did not want to take the delivery of the Order and the other being the Sunday. Two days were taken for completion of the paper work.
While going from Haridwar to Delhi, the car met with an accident with a tractor trolley near Khatauli. The car was totally smashed. Respondent lodged F.I.R. with Police Station, Khatauli. As the claim was not settled, the respondent filed the complaint.
On being noticed, the petitioner contested the claim petition. It was admitted that the respondent had taken the insurance policy cover on 29.10.1997. It was alleged that the complainant was not the owner of the car, as the car had not been registered in its name. The car had a temporary number and stood in the name of M/s Sardari Lal Oberoi and Company Private Limited, Dehradun. However, the respondent was asked to get the car repaired at the cost of Rs.2,10,000/-. It was stated that the information regarding the accident was given to the insurance company after 26 days of the accident. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the car was on a test drive and in collusion with the dealer, the complainant has tried to divert the case. It was also alleged that since the claimant did not have the insurable interest, the claim of the complainant was liable to be rejected.
District Forum, after taking evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,97,600/- within one month from the date of the Order on the basis of total loss with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of Order of District Forum and, if the payment was not made within one month, then, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a. instead of 12%.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid Order, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the Order passed by the District Forum and directed the respondent to handover the salvage of the car, registration and other papers of ownership of the car to the insurance company.
Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two fold submissions. The first submission being that the respondent did not have the insurable interest on the date of accident. We do not find any substance in this submission. The respondent had taken the insurance policy on 29.10.1997. Respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 6,767/- as premium. Engine number and chassis number of the car were mentioned in the policy. Delivery of the car was taken on 02.11.1997. Registration number alone cannot determine ownership. There was no dispute regarding the ownership between the complainant and the dealer. There was a lot of correspondences between the dealer and the insurance company. At no stage, the dealer was told that the complainant was not the owner or that she had not paid the price of the car and, therefore, the complainant should not be given the insurance amount. The petitioner has not put on record the various letters written to the complainant wherein respondent was treated as the owner of the car. In one of these letters, the petitioner was asked to arrange for dismantling of the car. We have not seen these letters as they have not been put on record but the State Commission has discussed these letters in detail. These letters go to show that the insurance company had acknowledged the complainant to be the owner and the plea that the respondent did not have the insurable interest, has been raised just to cancel the policy after two years of the issuance of the policy and more than six months of the filing of the complaint before the District Forum.
Plea that the car was on test drive, is to be noticed and rejected. Nobody will give the vehicle to be driven upto Delhi for a test drive.
Lastly, it was contended by Shri Mehra that the respondent had informed the petitioner about the accident on 28.11.1997, i.e., after 26 days of the accident whereas it should have informed the petitioner about the accident immediately. According to him, on this short ground, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The petitioner has not put on record the insurance policy. In the absence of the policy, we are not able to ascertain as to within what time, the respondent could file his claim. Mr. Mehra was unable to state as to within how much time, the claim could be filed. In the absence of any assertion, as to within how much time the complainant was required to inform the petitioner, it is neither possible nor desirable on our part to reject the claim of the respondent on this ground.
The petitioner had appointed Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Surveyor, who submitted his report on 05.01.1998. Thereafter, petitioner appointed Mr. R.K. Khodesia, Surveyor who submitted his report on 27.04.1998. In both these reports, the accident had not been disputed. Rather, both the Surveyors, after verification from the villagers, have stated that the accident had taken place in the manner alleged by the respondent.
No other point was urged.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same with costs, which are assessed at Rs.2,000/-.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER