STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      862 of 2016

Date of Institution:       22.09.2016

Date of Decision :       26.10.2016

United India Insurance Company Limited, Narwana, District Jind through its Branch Manager of Narwana Branch, through authorized signatory in Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Tarun Kumar Jangra s/o Shri Davinder Kumar, Resident of R-90, Model Town, Narwana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                      Respondent-complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

Argued by:          Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for appellant.

O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.118 of 2012.

2.                Car-Maruti Suzuki, bearing registration No.HR-10-T-3699 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party (appellant herein) for the period 16^th July, 2014 to 15^th July, 2015 vide Insurance Policy Annexure A-3. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.4,50,000/-. The car was purchased by Tarun Kumar Jangra-complainant/respondent from its previous owner Rajat Batra on 7^th July, 2014 who gave affidavit and other documents for transferring the car in favour of the complainant. The car met with an accident on 25^th August, 2014 and damaged. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that on the date of accident, that is, 25^th August, 2014 the car was insured in the name of Rajat Batra. Despite the fact that the complainant had purchased the car on 7^th July, 2014, the policy was not got transferred in the name of the complainant. Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“...Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,600/- (Rs.one lac thirty three thousand and six hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from receiving certified copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.9.2015 till its realization. We assessed Rs.3300/- (Rs.three thousand and three hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

5.                Counsel heard. File perused.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from its previous owner Rajat Batra and applied for transfer of ownership in his name with the Registering Authority and the Registration Certificate was transferred in his name on 29^th August, 2014. He applied for transfer of Insurance Policy in his favour on 1^st September, 2014. However, the vehicle met with an accident on 25^th August, 2014. The complainant informed the Insurance Company about the accident on 27^th August, 2014. Claim being lodged was repudiated only on the ground that on the date of accident, the complainant had not become the owner of the car.

7.