State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Rani Bhardwaj Wife Of Late Sh. Ashok ... vs Oic on 19 December, 2012
First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 307 of 2012
Date of institution : 14.03.2012
Date of Decision : 19.12.2012
Raj Rani Bhardwaj wife of late Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, resident of
House no. 5926, Modern Housing Complex, Duplex, Manimajra,
Chandigarh. ....Appellant/complainant
Versus
Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Sankhyan Complex, Main Market, Bilaspur
(HP), through its Manager. ...Respondent/OP
First Appeal against the order
dated 05.01.2012 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
For respondent : Ms. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (herein after referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The present complaint was filed by Smt. Raj Rani Bhardwaj alleging that her husband Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was owner of Swift Desire Car which was insured with the OP for the period from 06.04.2009 First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 2 to 05.04.2010. Being the owner of the vehicle insured, Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj also enjoyed a personal accidental insurance for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 14.02.2010 regarding which a criminal case was registered with the Police. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj died in the accident and other occupants suffered grievous injuries. Intimation was given to the OPs who deputed a Surveyor to whom the full cooperation was given but they repudiated the claim. The complainant therefore, filed the present complaint seeking Rs.2,00,000/- as personal accidental insurance to Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and also Rs.5,21,053/- as compensation for the damage/total loss of the vehicle. She therefore, prayed for the above said amount along with Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, pain and suffering and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation charges with interest @18% per annum.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OPs alleging that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint. On merits it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with the OPs and that Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj carried a personal accidental insurance policy of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to them car met with an accident and it was a case of total loss, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,21,053/- and they had asked for the consent from the complainant to receive Rs.3,10,498/- on cash loss basis besides Rs.2,00,000/- as personal accidental insurance of Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj. According to them they had asked the complainant to submit documents such as discharge voucher with original policy bond, two photographs of legal heirs, PAN Card, copy of form no. 60 and proof of residence i.e. Ration Card, Telephone Bills, Electricity Bills etc. but instead of submitting the same the complainant sent legal notice which was duly replied. As regards the personal accidental policy the contention of the OP is that the complainant has not submitted the copy of the FIR or the Post First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 3 Mortem report due to which the claim could not be paid. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contention.
5. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.01.2012 as mentioned in para no.1 above. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complaint has been dismissed by the learned District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction which order cannot sustain. There is no dispute about it that the insurance policy was purchased by Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj from Bilaspur (HP) but that alone cannot determine the territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint under the Act. The learned counsel argued that the accident in the present case took place near Village Baruwal in District Roopnagar and an FIR Ex.C-2 was lodged with the Police Station, Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnager. The learned counsel argued that the place of accident gave the complainant a cause of action to file the complaint. The learned District Forum did not agree with this contention but we may refer to the case "Manoj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." I (1999) CPJ 349 in which case a truck was insured with the insurance company, the truck met with an accident at Bathinda but the complaint was filed by the insured at Bathinda was dismissed, as in the present case, for want of territorial jurisdiction. The appeal was filed by the appellant and it was held by this Commission that a part of cause of action accrued within Bathinda where the accident took place and therefore, the First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 4 District Forum at Bathinda had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This question again arose in case " Bajaj Allianze Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Agastus Tirki & othrs." I (2010) CPJ 96 before the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission. In that case also accident had occurred within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, and objection was taken that the said District Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction but the same was not accepted by the learned District Forum and the complaint was allowed. On an appeal being filed against the said order the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission upheld the order holding that incident of road accident happened within the jurisdiction of District Forum and on that basis, finding in respect of having jurisdiction as recorded by the Learned District Forum was correct.
8. In the present case also the accident was the cause which occurred giving a right to the complainant to file this complaint. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum, Roopnagar has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
9. It is admitted by the OP/respondent that the vehicle was total loss. It is not disputed that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,21,053/- in such cases of total loss the OP is liable to pay the full amount of Rs.5,21,053/- as compensation to the complainant.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the said amount could not be paid because the car is involved in an accident and was released on spurdari and that the complainant is required to transfer the vehicle in their favour and therefore, she is required to execute various documents in this respect. Admittedly, the vehicle is not in the name of the complainant it would be therefore, necessary for the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in her favour in accordance with Rule 56 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thereafter, she is required First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 5 to follow the procedure as mentioned in Section 50 (1) (a) of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 55 of Rules ibid under which she is to submit the report to the registering authority in Form no. 29 regarding the transfer in favour of the OPs and send a copy of the said report to the transferee i.e. OP. In view of Section 50(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act it is the duty of the transferee i.e. the OP to get the vehicle transferred in their name within 30 days by submitting a report to the Registering Authority along with the certificate of registration and the prescribed fee. They are also to submit the copy of the report received from the complainant as mentioned above. It is therefore, not the duty of the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in favour of the OP but she is only to submit a report to the Registering Authority with a copy of the same to the OPs in the prescribed form as provided in Section 50 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
11. There is another aspect of the case As per the report Ex.C-3 of the Surveyor the amount payable to the complainant on total loss basis is Rs.5,21,053/- whereas on repair basis it is Rs.5,01,387/- as the salvage value of the parts is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. However, the salvage value of the damaged vehicle is assessed at Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore if the complainant is unable to transfer or does not want to transfer the vehicle in favour of the OP/respondent then she would be entitled to Rs.3,96,053/- as mentioned by the Surveyor. The OPs are however, seeking a discharge voucher for paying the complainant a sum of Rs.3,10,498/- only which step on their part is not correct. They are delaying the claim un-necessarily on frivolous grounds though all the documents needed by the OP are being handed over to them.
12. It may be made clear that it would be the choice of the complainant either to get the total amount of Rs.5,21,053/- and for that First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 6 purpose she will get the vehicle transferred in her name and then submit the documents to the OP to get the vehicle transferred in their favour. She would execute the necessary documents for the purpose of transfer as required under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under. If she does not want to transfer the vehicle in their favour or wants to retain the vehicle and to sell it at her own level then she would be entitled to Rs.3,96,053/- and should submit application before the OP to this effect. In any case the demand of discharge voucher of Rs.3,10,498/- is totally unjustified.
13. As regards the personal accidental insurance cover the contention of the OP is that the complainant is to submit FIR, Post-Mortem report, the Photographs and the proof of residence. The FIR Ex.C-2 has already been submitted. There is no denying the fact that Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj has died and therefore, Post Mortem Report is not relevant. Since there is no dispute between the legal heirs nor any other legal heir is reported to have filed an application before the OP claiming the insurance amount, there is no need to ask for the succession certificate. As regards other documents referred to above the same have already been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant to the learned counsel for the respondent before this Commission on 13.12.2012. No other document is therefore, to be submitted in this respect.
14. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum cannot sustain and the same is accordingly, set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed with cost in terms as mentioned above. The complainant would be entitled to Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
15. The amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date when they receive the copy of the transfer report First Appeal no. 307 of 2012 7 from the complainant or the consent in writing to receive the amount of Rs.3,96,053/- which ever is earlier. In case the compensation is not paid within the aforesaid period, the complainant would be entitled to the same along with interest @9% per annum since 12.11.2010, (i.e. 30 days after the report of the Surveyor Ex.C-3) till the amount is actually paid.
16. In order to safeguard of the interest of OP/respondent the insurance company would be free to recover the amount of interest and cost from the Branch Manager who caused the delay in paying the amount.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member 19th December, 2012 Rashmi