State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharmender Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 4 August, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 887 of 2016 Date of Institution: 27.09.2016 Date of Decision : 04.08.2017 Dharamender Singh s/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Resident of Village Bhavdeen, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Appellant-Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Private Limited through its Divisional Manager, 4501, 1st Floor, Bank Bazar, Bathinda-150001 through its Divisional Office, situated at Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager. Respondent-Opposite Party CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Argued by: Shri Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 16th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short 'the District Forum') whereby complaint was dismissed.
2. Car (Maruti Swift Dzire) bearing registration No.HR-59B-2983 owned by Dharamender Singh-complainant/appellant, was got insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company')-Opposite Party/respondent regarding the period June 15th, 2011 to May 28th, 2012 vide insurance policy No.233200/31/2012/983/001 (Exhibit C-6). The Insured Declare Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.5,60,000/-. The car was badly damaged due to an accident on 24th June, 2011 near Village Bhavdeen in the area of Police Station Ding, District Sirsa. Information was given to the opposite party and in compliance of a letter dated 4th August, 2011 issued by the opposite party, all the relevant documents were provided by the complainant. The total loss was also got assessed by the opposite party from Shakti Motors, Sirsa as Rs.5,60,000/-, being the IDV of the car. The complainant filed claim with the opposite party but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 30th March, 2012 (Exhibit C-10) mentioning that on the date of accident, the complainant had no insurable interest regarding car vehicle No.HR-59B-2983. The complainant was entitled to receive the above mentioned amount as per assessment made by Shakti Motors, Sirsa. Apart from it, the complainant also had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony due to fault of the opposite party. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- on account of damage caused to the vehicle being IDV with interest at the rate of 2% per month; to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony, and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The Insurance Company-Opposite Party in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the car vehicle was not insured on the date of accident in the name of the complainant and that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from the District Forum. As per version of the opposite party, the complainant has wrongly taken plea that the accident took place on 24th June, 2011. In fact, the accident took place on 24th April, 2011 and by that time, the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle. The car vehicle was purchased by the complainant from its earlier registered owner Muninder @ Mahender Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Resident of Village Gurusar, District Fatehabad in the month of December, 2010. Certificate of Registration of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 7th June, 2011. On 24th April, 2011 the complainant was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor got insured the car vehicle in his name. The insurance policy was got transferred in the name of the complainant on 15th June, 2011 after the accident. It is pleaded that in fact the insurance policy period commenced from May 28th, 2011 to May 28th, 2012. The opposite party denied the remaining pleas taken in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. Parties led evidence before the District Forum in support of their respective claims.
5. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated August 16th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated August 16th, 2016, passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to allow the complaint.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
8. Admittedly, in the month of December, 2016, Muninder @ Mahender Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Resident of Village Gurusar, District Fatehabad, was the registered owner of car vehicle in question. Sometimes, in the month of December, 2010 the above mentioned car vehicle was purchased by complainant-Dharamender Singh. Certificate of Registration of the car was changed in the name of complainant on 7th June, 2011 and an endorsement was also made by the opposite party in the insurance policy in favour of the complainant providing insurance regarding the period 15th June, 2011 to 28th May, 2012.9.
9. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant was not the registered owner of the car vehicle prior to 7th June, 2012. Admittedly, the car vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. Total amount required for repair of the damaged car vehicle was assessed as Rs.6,84,174.85, as per Service Estimate dated 28th August, 2011 (Exhibit C-7). The total insured amount as mentioned in the insurance policy (Exhibit C-6) is Rs.5,60,000/-. In case, complaint of the complainant is allowed, the complainant shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- being IDV as total amount required for repair of the vehicle was more than that amount.
10. Main controversy between the complainant and the opposite party in this case is regarding date of accident. Version of the complainant is that the accident took place on 24th June, 2011 during the insurance period whereas version of the opposite party is that in fact the accident took place on 24th April, 2011 when neither the complainant had become registered owner of the vehicle nor there was any insurable interest in favour of the complainant. In case, findings are given that the accident actually took place on 24th April, 2011, certainly findings shall have to be given that the insurance claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as the complainant was not having any insurance policy in his favour on the date of accident.
11. It will be pertinent to mention here that regarding involvement of the car vehicle bearing registration No.HR-59B-2983 in an accident, no information was given to the Police neither on 24th April, 2011 nor on 24th June, 2011. The complainant could not produce copy of entries in Daily Diary Register or copy of FIR in connection with this accident. In the complaint also, it is not mentioned that any FIR was lodged regarding this accident. The complainant has also not made it clear as to whether the car vehicle was involved in accident with another vehicle or with any other object like a tree, stone or animal etc. The complainant has also not mentioned the registration number of the vehicle and name of driver of the vehicle which was involved in this accident with the car vehicle owned by the complainant. From all these circumstances, it can be suspected that the complainant mentioned the date of accident as 24th June, 2011 and even did not prefer to lodge FIR so that he may be able to receive insurance claim from the insurance company conveniently. Moreover, on the alleged date of accident dated 24th April, 2011 complainant being under age was not having a valid and effective driving licence. At the time of investigation by the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, the complainant Dharamender Singh himself admitted in his statement (Exhibit R/3) that the accident actually took place on 24th April, 2011. Satish Kumar in his statement/own writing (Exhibit R-4) on 30th August, 2011 stated that the accident had taken place about 3-4 months back. Similarly, Karamvir Phutela, Dalvinder Singh and Randeep Singh in their statements, Exhibit R-5, Exhibit R-5/A and Exhibit R-6 respectively, mentioned approximate time of the accident 3-4 months prior to 30th August, 2011. At the time of recording evidence before the learned District Forum, affidavits of Dalvinder Singh, Satish Kumar, Karamvir, Gurdev Singh and Maninder Singh (Exhibits C-14 to C-18) were tendered in evidence. All of them tried to explain in their affidavits that actually the accident had taken place on 24th June, 2011 but dates were not correctly mentioned below their signatures in their statements. Complainant Dharamender Singh in his complaint as well in his affidavit has also not mentioned the presence of any other person as eye witness at the time of accident.
12. As per discussions above in detail, it appears that the complainant did not think it proper to lodge FIR regarding this accident intentionally because when the accident took place on 24th April, 2011, the complainant was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor was having any insurable interest. FIR was not got recorded after 24th June, 2011 also to avoid investigation by the Police regarding this accident. Moreover, the complainant had himself given in writing to the investigator of the insurance company that actual date of accident was 24th April, 2011. Satish Kumar etc mentioned above told in their statements before the investigator that the accident had taken place prior to the month of June, 2011. In these circumstances, we feel no hesitation in holding that the accident actually took place on 24th April, 2011 and the complainant has intentionally mentioned the date of accident in the complaint as 24th June, 2011 to obtain insurance claim illegally.
13. Resultantly, findings are given that the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as neither he was the registered owner of the vehicle nor was having any insurable interest on 24th April, 2011, the date of accident. In this way, we find no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by the District Forum. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.
Announced:
04.08.2017 Urvashi Agnihotri Member Balbir Singh Judicial Member Nawab Singh President CL