NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF KULWANT RAI
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-11-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 27,2009

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Ravinder Kumar Son Of Kulwant Rai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that, vehicle bearing registration No. HP -22 -9536 was initially owned by Shri Krishan Kumar as is evident from Annexure C. 1, photo copy of the registration certificate (R. C. ). It further shows that it was transferred in favour of Ravinder Kumar, respondent, on 8.3.2006. As per insurance document, Annexure C. 2, certificate of insurance, vehicle in question was insured in favour of its erstwhile registered owner i. e. Shri Krishan Kumar.
(2.) FROM the record as well as other material placed on the complaint file, it could not be disputed on behalf of the respondent that the insurance had not been got transferred by the respondent after having complied with the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with General Regulation 17 of the India Motor Tariff, 2002, which came into force on and with effect from 1.7.2002. What is its effect, shall be dealt with hereafter.
(3.) IT is again not disputed between the parties that this vehicle met with accident on 27.5.2006 after it had been transferred in the name of the respondent by its registered owner, Shri Krishan Kumar. However, as noted hereinabove, insurance certificate continued to be in the name of Krishan Kumar. Now the dispute starts. Reason being that after accident, intimation was given by the respondent to the appellant who deputed Shri Umesh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for the purpose of finding out if there is any loss justifying further final survey. Claim lodged by the appellant was declined in June, 2006 as per the averments made in the complaint on the ground of non completion of claim formalities. This resulted in filing of Consumer Complaint No. 152/2006, alleging deficiency of service. As according to the respondent, he had spent Rs. 6,500/ - for bringing the vehicle to Hamirpur for repairs from the spot of accident and he incurred another sum of Rs. 40,000/ - for getting it repaired. Requisite documents were provided to the appellant by the respondent, still his claim was declined in the month of June, 2006 without any justifiable reasons. In this background, he prayed for the grant of Rs. 40,000/ - on account of repair charges, Rs. 6,500/ - as recovery Van charges, Rs. 10,000/ - for causing unnecessary harassment and mental torture besides Rs. 6500/ - as litigation cost.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.