R.S. Sharma, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 9.1.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 404/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondent (complainant) and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 4,93,500 within a month to the respondent (complainant) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.10.2012 till the date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the respondent. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: that the respondent (complainant) is owner of vehicle Ashok Leyland 2214 Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04 -J.A. 3835 which was insured with the appellants (OPs) for the period from 2.6.2011 to 1.6.2012. The Policy No. is 45030031110100001693. The respondent (complainant) purchased the said vehicle with the help of finance provided by I.C.I.C.I. Bank. On 11.11.2011 after loading the goods in the vehicle, the driver Rajendra Singh departed to Dhanbad from Raipur and on 13.11.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. near Bhakuwa Toli, Police Station, Gumla, District Gumla (District Jharkhand) near culvert the vehicle turtled and was damaged extensively. The goods (ammonia nitrate) which was loaded in the said vehicle was also washed away. The driver of the vehicle made written complaint before Police Station, Gumla. The respondent (complainant) after completing all formalities submitted claim before the Ranchi Branch of the appellants through Mohammad Iliyas Ansari on 25.11.2011. Sale agreement was executed between Mohammad Iliyas Ansari and the respondent (complainant). As the said vehicle was financed by the I.C.I.C.I. Bank and the entire amount of the loan was not paid by the respondent (complainant), therefore, name of the purchaser was not transferred in the office of R.T.O., hence on the date of incident i.e. 13.11.2011 the owner of the vehicle is the respondent (complainant) and the Insurance Policy is also issued in the name of respondent (complainant), therefore, the respondent (complainant) is entitled to receive compensation from the appellants (OPs). The claim which was submitted by the respondent (complainant) before the appellants (OPs) on 25.11.2011 along with documents was transferred to office of appellant No. 1 (O.P. No. 1). On 22.3.2012 the appellant No. 1 sent letter to the respondent and informed that the vehicle was sold, therefore, there was no right in the insured vehicle and there was no insurable interest of the respondent (complainant) on the said vehicle. In reply to the above letter, the respondent (complainant) sent legal notice on 2.6.2013 to the appellants (OPs). Thereafter he went to the office of appellant No. 1 (O.P.) and sought information regarding his claim then the letter dated 2.6.2012 is not satisfactory. The respondent (complainant) submitted claim through Mohammad Iliyas Ansari for getting compensation, hence his claim is being not settled, so the respondent (complainant) himself submitted motor claim form on 22.8.2012 but the appellants (OPs) refused to take it thereafter the respondent (complainant) vide letter dated 27.8.2012 in his name sent claim form along with documents by regd. post to the appellants (OPs). Appellant No. 1 (O.P. No. 1) sent letter through its Advocate and informed that the claim which was submitted in the Divisional Office, Raipur was repudiated vide letter dated 13.4.2012 and the respondent (complainant) is having knowledge regarding this fact, whereas the respondent (complainant) has not received letter dated 13.4.2012 sent by the appellants (OPs). The appellants (OPs) informed the respondent (complainant) regarding repudiation of his claim after lapse of long time. The respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellants (OPs) to pay compensation, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
(2.) THE appellants (OPs) filed written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made against them by the respondent (complainant). The appellants (OPs) pleaded that the respondent (complainant) has intimated the Police regarding the incident belatedly. The respondent (complainant) submitted claim form on 25.11.2011 along with other documents i.e., registration book of the vehicle, permit, fitness, Insurance Policy and photocopy of driving licence of the driver as well as sale agreement before the Insurance Company. The respondent (complainant) intimated the Insurance Company regarding the incident late and thus violated condition No. 1 of the Insurance Policy. After receiving intimation, the Insurance Company has appointed independent Surveyor Shri Gyanchandra Rai and requested him to submit survey report, whose report No. is 05/NIA/2011. M (F) which runs in 9 pages. Along with this report, photographs and documents were also submitted in the office of the Insurance Company. The Surveyor assessed the loss on Net of Salvage Loss Basis at Rs. 4,93,500 and the said amount was payable as per insurance contract. On the basis of above valuation, the salvage value of the vehicle was fixed by the insured at Rs. 3,55,000 driving licence of the driver as well as sale agreement before the Insurance Company. The respondent (complainant) intimated the Insurance Company regarding the incident late and thus violated condition No. 1 of the Insurance Policy. After receiving intimation, the Insurance Company has appointed independent Surveyor Shri Gyanchandra Rai and requested him to submit survey report, whose report No. is 05/NIA/2011. M (F) which runs in 9 pages. Along with this report, photographs and documents were also submitted in the office of the Insurance Company. The Surveyor assessed the loss on Net of Salvage Loss Basis at Rs. 4,93,500 and the said amount was payable as per insurance contract. On the basis of above valuation, the salvage value of the vehicle was fixed by the insured at Rs. 3,55,000 and he provided a consent letter to keep the salvage with him. For the above action, the Ranchi office of the Insurance Company has transferred the entire documents to Division Office No. 1 of Raipur office because the said policy was obtained by the insured from the Raipur office. It has been further pleaded that from the para 06 of the complaint, it is clear that before Ranchi office of the Insurance Company, the insured had not executed the work but another person namely Mohd. Iliyas Ansari had completed the formalities and executed the work, who was not related with the OPs. The respondent (complainant) had sold the vehicle to Mohd. Iliyas Ansari and the respondent (complainant) has filed document No. 22 along with the complaint according to which it is proved a sale agreement was executed between Shri Surendra Kumar Bhilave and Mohd. Iliyas Ansari on 11.4.2009 which also proves that truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04 -JA3835 was sold on 11.4.2008 for Rs. 1,40,000 by Shri Surendra Kumar Bhilave to Mohd. Iliyas Ansari and on the date of sale the complainant had received the sale consideration and he provided the possession to Mohd. Iliyas Ansari, and as the said truck was financed by I.C.I.C.I. Bank, therefore an agreement was executed between the parties that Mohd. Iliyas Ansari will pay the remaining amount. Thus, on the date of incident the actual owner of the vehicle was Mohd. Iliyas Ansari and not Surendra Kumar Bhilawe. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
(3.) MR . P.K. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. He argued that the learned District Forum has committed a mistake in holding that the insured vehicle was not sold by the insured on 11.4.2008 to one Shri Mohd. Iliyas Ansari and in this regard the respondent (complainant) himself also filed vehicle sale agreement. He further argued that on the date of incident the actual owner of the vehicle was Mohd. Iliyas Ansari and not the complainant.;