State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N.I.C.Ltd. vs Sh.Onkar Singh Sethi on 12 December, 2006
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA, CAMP AT NAHAN. ----- FIRST APPEAL NO.320/2005. DATE OF DECISION. 12.12.2006. In the matter of: National Insurance Company Ltd., Badru Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. through its Branch Manager. Appellant/Opposite party. Versus Shri Onkar Singh Sethi S/O Sh. Amolak Singh Sethi, Resident of House No.4/21, Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Respondent/ complainant. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant. Mr. Vishwa Raj Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. K.S. Chauhan, Advocate. O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admitted facts of this case are that vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-17-9381 was owned by respondent and was insured with the appellant. It was Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to the see the order?
also not disputed on behalf of the parties that it was wholly financed by the Union Bank of India, Paonta Sahib Branch. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that balance outstanding amount has been cleared by his client and every penny has been paid. On this aspect of the case Shri Vishwa Raj Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that his clients have not been provided with any intimation by the banker and in its records the vehicle still continues to be financed by the aforesaid bank i.e. Union Bank of India, Paonta Sahib Branch. Therefore, his client is liable to deposit the amount, if any, with the said Financier. He also submitted that at no point of time his client either refused or declined to make payment for the vehicle in question after its theft was reported. However, needful could not be done because of the failure on the part of the respondent to have provided the indemnity bond, letter of subrogation, letter of discharge and transfer of Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Amount was tendered according to him to the respondent during the course of proceedings in the complaint as far as back as on 1.11.2004, of course, favouring the Financier in the account of the respondent in the sum of Rs.6,29,000/- against the insured amount of Rs.6,30,000/-. For want of needful not being done by the respondent, his client is not at fault. Thus, he urged that his client is not liable to pay anything over and above Rs.6,29,000/- subject, of course, to fulfilling the aforesaid requirements by the respondent.
2. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined record of the case with their assistance, it is clearly spelt out that vehicle in question was stolen within a short period after it was purchased by the respondent and all the original papers including Registration Certificate were in the vehicle at the time of theft. In these circumstances, we feel that there is substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent that it is humanely impossible for his client to deliver the Registration Certificate. Regarding letter of subrogation, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that his client will do the needful at Paonta Branch of the appellant. Similarly, it was also stated on behalf of the respondent at the Bar that for issuing duplicate Registration Certificate, his client will apply and thereafter deliver the same to the appellant.
3. Now remains the question as to how to deal the matter in case salvage is retrieved by the police for which FIR is registered in Police Station, Rajori Garden, New Delhi.
We feel that this question need not detain us any further for the simple reason that after having paid the full amount of Rs.6,29,000/- in terms of the impugned order, it is the appellant who is legally entitled for being delivered the salvage of the vehicle in whatever condition it is retrieved by the police on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. To this, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly stated that his client can have no objection. This statement made in our view is not only fair, but is also in accordance with law.
4. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 10.8.2005 in Complaint No.52/2004, passed by the District Forum below is modified in the following terms:-
(a) Sum of Rs.6,29,000/- with interest and cost as assessed by the District Forum is upheld and it shall be deposited by the appellant with the Union Bank of India at its Paonta Sahib Branch. Since it was stated on behalf of the respondent that the account has already been squared up by him i.e. the respondent, and if it is the Bank within one week of the receipt of the certified copy of this order from the respondent shall pay the amount to Onkar Singh Sethi son of Sh. Amolak Singh Sethi, Resident of 4/21, Shamsherpur Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., failing which, respondent shall be entitled to have interest from the Bank at the same rate at which the vehicle was financed by the Bank for the period beyond one week of the receipt of the certified copy of this order;
(b) Respondent shall execute a discharge voucher, letter of subrogation at the cost and expense of the appellant whenever called upon in writing by the latter;
(c) Respondent shall also apply again at the cost and expense of the appellant to the Registration & Licensing Authority for issuance of duplicate R.C., and thereafter if the appellant wants it to be transferred in its favour, he shall also get the needful done on payment of such charges as per law by the appellant;
(d) It is further ordered that on the strength of this order since the case has been finally settled, because of the insured vehicle having been stolen if ultimately the police of Police Station, Rajori Garden, New Delhi is able to retrieve it back then vehicle in such a situation in whatever condition, it shall be the appellant who will be entitled to take its delivery on as is where is basis from the police. In case for its release and giving effect to this order, anything is required to be undertaken by the appellant from the respondent;, latter shall do the needful but at the cost and expense of the appellant;
(e) No costs; and
(f) Subject to above modification, appeal stands finally disposed of.
All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
Nahan, December 12, 2006.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President.
( Narinder Singh Thakur ) Member.
(Saroj Sharma) /BS/ Member.