State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company ... vs Sumit Arora Son Of S. Manohar Lal, on 23 April, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 864 of 2008
Date of institution: 13.8.2008
Date of decision : 23.4.2013
United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No. 153-
154, 17-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.
.....Appellant
Versus
Sumit Arora son of S. Manohar Lal, resident of Bhadroja Road, Near
Primary School, Pathankot (Pb.) C/o Hardev Singh son of Ujagar Singh,
Village Akhtiarpura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 2.7.208
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. V. Ram Sarup, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. R.K. Shukla, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant-United India Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 2.7.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent purchased Accent Car bearing registration No. PB-28-C-4723 model 2006 and insured comprehensively with the appellant vide cover note No. 664539 for First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 2 an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- for the period of 19.1.2007 to 18.1.2008 by paying premium of Rs. 14,866/-.
3. The car met with an accident when the same was being driven by his friend Sh. Amit Goel having valid licence on 19.1.2007, who died in the accident. The car was totally damaged in the accident. The claim was lodged with the appellants. Investigator was appointed and the claim was also investigated by the investigator. It was further pleaded by the respondent/complainant that during the investigation the investigator dictated some statements which the respondent wrote at the instance of the investigator due to his mis-guidance, the claim of the respondent was repudiated vide letter dated 7.12.2007 on the ground that the respondent had already sold the vehicle to deceased Amit Goel and he was not having insurable interest. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs. 4,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as demand of Rs. 22,000/- was also made as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellants by taking preliminary objections that the respondent does not come under the definition of 'consumer' as he had already sold the car in dispute to Sh. Amit Goel s/o Sh. R.P. Goel, c/o M/s Om Auto and General Finance, Malerkotla in September, 2006. The purchaser get the car registered at Malerkotla and also purchased the insurance policy for the period of 19.1.2007 to 18.1.2008 in the name of the respondent. The car was not insured for the period of 19.1.2007 to 18.1.2008. The respondent was not the owner of the car as such he was not having insurable interest. It was denied that the car was insured by the respondent himself. It was further pleaded that the car met with an accident and the car was damaged and First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 3 Sh. Amit Goel died in the accident as per the FIR. On intimation, Surveyor was appointed as well as the matter was also investigated. The respondent himself submitted his statement written by him to the investigator, which is reproduced:-
"Statement submitted by Sh. Sumit Arora Son of Sh. Manohar Lal residence of Bhadroja Road, Near Govt. Primary School, Pathankot dated 3/3/07. I do hereby stated that I purchased a car Accent PB-28C-4723 I purchased in January 2006 through Civil Supply from the dealer of Hyundai Defence Road, Pathankot amounted 5.50 Lacs and give to Amit Goyal R/o Malerkotla in September 2006 under Sale deed in Rs. Near about 4.50 lac. The vehicle was purchased by me under finance provision from State Bank of Patiala, Shahpur Chowk Pathankot. After taking the cost of the car from Mr. Amit Goyal I deposited to State Bank of Patiala, to refund my loan. I have no knowledge about Hardev Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh or President of Village Akhtiarpura Tehsil Malerkotla Distt. Sangrur, that how he appeared in the sale deed of car sold car in between Sh. Amit Goyal and myself. I retained the car with me nine months without registration with any D.T.O. This copy of Affidavit of Sale Purchase Deed of the said car will be handed over. Immediately of finding out even otherwise my statement remain uncompleted or I will submit in respect of sale purchase deal of the said car taken in between Sh. Amit Goyal and myself. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and has been submitted by me without any influence and interference of anybody in order to complete the investigation and also without pressure of anybody.
Submitted By:
Signed Sumit Arora Stamp of Er. J.K. Garg Investigator and his Signature"
In view of the statement of the respondent, the claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellant.
5. The District Forum vide its order accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation i.e. 7.12.2007 till realization and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses within 60 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
6. The appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that from the statement of the respondent, it was proved beyond doubt that the car was sold by the respondent to Sh. Amit Goel, who had not got transferred First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 4 the vehicle as well as policy in his name and as per G.R. 17 the respondent was not entitled for any claim. It is also settled by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme that if the purchaser had not transferred the policy within 15 days from the transfer of the vehicle in his name then the purchaser will not be entitled for any claim. As such, the order of the District Forum is against the terms and conditions of the policy as per G.R. 17 and the same is liable to be set- aside.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute that Accent car in dispute bearing PB- 28C-4723 model 2006 was registered in the name of the respondent and was comprehensively insured with the appellants from 19.1.2007 to 18.1.2008. There is also no dispute that the car met with an accident on 29.1.2007 at 4.00 a.m. in the area of Village Wadali and an FIR No. 7 dated 29.1.2007 was registered under Section 279, 304A in the P.S. Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the statement of Sh. Subhash Chander s/o Jagdish Chander, r/o Ram Nagar, Malerkotla when the car was being driven by Sh. Amit Goel s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, R/o Malerkotla. There is also no dispute that intimation of the accident was given to the appellants and surveyor as well as investigator was appointed by the appellants.
9. On the report of the Investigator-Mr. Jiwan Kumar Garg that the car was sold by the respondent in September, 2006 to late Amit Goel as per the statement Ex. R-7 of the respondent the claim of the respondent was repudiated.
First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 5
10. Now only dispute between the parties which we have to decide is whether the car was sold by the respondent to deceased Amit Goel or not?
11. We have perused the statement written by the respondent himself and handed over the same to the investigator, which is reproduced in the reply of the appellants. As per the written statement of the respondent, the car in dispute was sold to Amit Goyal R/o Malerkotla in September, 2006 for Rs. 4.50 lacs, which was deposited by him to clear the loan with State Bank of Patiala as the car was purchased by the respondent after taking the loan from SBOP. He had also submitted that the car was not got registered by him for almost nine months in his name.
12. The version of the counsel for the respondent is that the statement was made by the respondent due to mis-guidance of the Investigator and the same was not correct. But the counsel for the respondent had not denied that the same was not scribed by the respondent himself.
13. We have also perused the registration certificate Ex. C-2 which is in the name of Mr. Sumit Arora respondent but the address given in the registration certificate is as under:-
'Sumit Arora s/o Manohar Lal, R/o Bhadroya Road, Near Govt. Primary School, Pathankot C/o Hardev Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh R/o Akhtiarpura Teh. Malerkotla.'
14. But it is not the case of the respondent that he was resident of village Akhtiarpura or at the time of registration certificate he was residing at village Akhtiarpura. The respondent had given his address in the complaint as:-
"Sumit Arora s/o Manohar Lal R/o Bhadroja Road, Near Primary School, Pathankot"First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 6
15. The respondent had also not pleaded in his complaint under what circumstances he got registered his car from the Registering Authority, Malerkotla and not from the Registering Authority, Pathankot where he was permanently residing. The registration of the vehicle in dispute from the Registration Authority at Malerkotla also proves that the car was sold by the respondent to deceased Amit Goel. The appellants also tendered into evidence statement of Smt. Jasmel Kaur wife of Tarak Singh, R/o Akhtiarpura, Member, Gram Panchayat of Village Akhtiarpura Ex. R-6 dated 31.7.2007 vide which she had stated that Sumit Arora s/o Manohar Lal r/o Pathankot never resided in her village Akhtiarpura. The address given in the Registration Certificate was not correct.
16. We have also perused the copy of the FIR Ex. C-6 which was registered on the statement of Sh. Subhash Chander s/o Jagdish Chander, Caste Aggarwal, R/o Ram Nagar, Malerkotla and in his statement it was stated by said Jagdish Chander that deceased Amit Goel was going from Malerkotla to Chandigarh in his own cars being registration No. PB10-BP- 9093 and PB-28C-4723. From the said statement of Jagdish Chander it is also proved that the owner of the car in dispute was deceased Amit Goel and not the respondent.
17. We have also perused the intimation letter Ex. R-5. The intimation on 28.2.2007 regarding the accident was also given by father of the deceased Amit Goel to Divisional Manager, Sangrur regarding the accident. If respondent was owner then why he had not intimated the appellant immediately after the accident which was occurred on 29.1.2007 and information regarding the accident was given by the father of deceased Amit Goel after one month of the accident.
18. So from the above circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the car in dispute was sold by the respondent to deceased Amit Goel in the month of September, 2006 and the same was got registered by First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 7 deceased Amit Goel from Registration Authority Malerkotla in the name of the respondent after furnishing the wrong address of the respondent as resident of village Akhtiarpura. The insurance policy was also purchased by the deceased in the name of the respondent illegally.
19. The deceased Amit Goel had not got transferred the registration of the car in dispute in his name as well as the policy as per G.R. 17. The respondent was not having any insurable interest in the car, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Om Parkash Sharma Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors.", 2009 CTJ 313 (CP) (NCDRC) upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company as respondent No.1 did not get the policy transferred in his name. The Hon'ble National Commission in para 4 observed as follows:-
"As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
20. The findings of the District Forum that the respondent was having locus-standi to file the claim even after sale is not correct in the eyes of law and the judgments relied by the District Forum are not applicable and against G.R. 17 which was not discussed by the District Forum in its order, which was applicable at the time of accident. As such, the order of the District Forum is against the law as well as evidence on record and the same is liable to be set-aside.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.4.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 864 of 2008 8
23. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
April 23, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member