RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJINDER KAUR
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2012-4-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 16,2012

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
RAJINDER KAUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY V. CM. IBRAHIM KUTTY [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. KAMAL TOURS AND TRAVELS [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. SHRI DIVYA PRASHAD [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. DALIP KUMAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the opposite parties (now appellant, as the appeal has been filed by opposite party No. 1 only), as under:
"In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 6,20,000 to the complainant towards the claim of the insured vehicle. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, along with Rs. 20,000 towards costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs. 20,000.

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased the vehicle, bearing registration No. HR -70 -A -2367 from Sh. Gurinderpal Singh, and subsequently, she got Registration Certificate transferred, inner name. The vehicle, in question, was got insured with the opposite parties, for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. Necessary changes were also got made, in the insurance policy. The complainant was allotted new registration No.CH -01 -L -1622 (infactCH04L -1622). Thereafter, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Sunil Kumar. On 18.4.2010, during the currency of the policy, when the vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar, it caught fire. Mr. Sunil Kumar, called the Fire Brigade immediately, but in the meanwhile, the car was found to be badly damaged. DDRNo. 7dated 18.4.2010 (Annexure C -4) was also lodged in this regard. The Surveyor carried out the spot inspection of the vehicle on 21.4.2010 at Panipat, and gave his report dated 17.5.2010, mentioning therein, that few parts of the car were missing, as it was standing on the Highway for 2 -3 days unattended. The Surveyor demanded documents, such as Registration Certificate, Driving Licence, Identity proof, Fire Brigade report, etc. It was stated that despite completion of all the formalities, and even after the service of legal notice dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure -5), upon the opposite parties, they did not settle the claim. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
(3.)THE opposite parties, in their written version, admitted that the vehicle in question, was insured with them for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. It was stated that since the complainant had already sold the vehicle, in favour of Sunil Kumar, but neither the registration certificate nor the insurance policy had been transferred in his favour, and as such, neither she, nor the vendee (Sunil Kumar), had insurable interest. It was further stated that thus the opposite parties were not liable to indemnify her (complainant). It was further stated that after the claim was lodged with the opposite parties, with regard to the damage, caused to the vehicle, in the aforesaid incident, M/s Royal Associates were appointed to investigate the matter. The Surveyor/ Investigator, submitted his report to the effect, that the claim was not genuine. It was further stated that the Surveyor/Investigator opined in his report (Annexure R -1) that the date, tirne and the place of fire were not correct and the insured did not cooperate with him fully. It was further pointed out by the Surveyor/ Investigator that many discrepancies were found in the statements of the persons, who were travelling, in the vehicle, at the time of incident. It was further stated that the other Surveyor M/s. Chawla Associates, in its report, pointed out that many parts of the vehicle were missing and no efforts were made, nor reasonable care was taken by the complainant to safeguard the vehicle by leaving the same, unattended at the place of incident. It was further stated that earlier the vehicle was insured with M/s. National Insurance Company and the policy was valid for the period from 31.5.2008 to 30.5.2009. During that period, major loss to the vehicle occurred and the claim was settled on 'NOS' basis. It was further stated that the vehicle was got repaired at that time and transferred in the name of the insured, but this aspect of the case was never disclosed to the opposite parties. It was further stated that the vehicle was not got tested for roadworthiness, and no certificate from the Motor Vehicles Inspector was obtained. It was further stated that there was suppression of material fact and non -disclosure of the true facts and as such, no claim was payable. It was further stated that a letter dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure R -4) was also written to the complainant, to clarify the aforesaid facts, but to no avail, and as such, the claim was closed as 'No Claim'. It was further stated that during the course of investigation of the claim, the matter was discussed with the complainant and she agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 6,20,000 towards the said loss. It was further stated that, however, the said claim was not found to be payable to her for the aforesaid reasons. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.
The parties led evidence in support of their case.



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