UNITED INDIA INSURNACE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SANJAY DHALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter tobe referred as the District Forum) vide which it accepted the complaint and directed OP No. 1 (now appellant) to pay a sum of Rs. 74,950towards the insurance claim of the car, along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. It was also directed that OP No. 1 shall pay Rs. 7,000 as costs of the litigation. It was also directed that if the order was not complied with by OP No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the amount of Rs.99,950 shall be paid to the Complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 10.11.2009 till realization of the same.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant was the owner of Maruti (800 CC) car which was insured. Since the car had become old, the complainant intended to replace it with a new car. He purchased a new (Hyundai i10 Sportz) car from OP -2. He also sold his old Maruti Car to one Sh. Bava Singh, OP No. 2, who is the agent of OP No. 1, at the time of purchase of the new car, offered to issue insurance cover, regarding the same, to which the complainant agreed. OP No. 2 issued the cover note regarding the insurance of new car (Hyundai i10 Sportz). While issuing the cover note, OP No. 2, asked the complainant if there was any other insurance policy with the complainant. The complainant informed the representative of OP No. 2 that he was having an old Maruti (800CC) car. It was also informed that he had already sold the said Maruti Car bearing Registration No. CH -03 -K -1801, vide sale -cum -delivery letter. Photo copies of the sale -cum -delivery letter, as also of the affidavit of the purchaser, were supplied to the representative of OP. The said representative of OP No. 2 took the original Insurance Policy of the old Maruti Car, and retained the same. It was, thereafter, that the insurance cover note regard Hyundai i10 car was issued, in favour of the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 6,639, as premium of the insurance policy, in respect of his new car. At that time, the complainant was asked by OP No. 2, as to whether any claim was taken on the old insurance policy, to which, the complainant replied that he had not taken any claim, on the insurance policy of old car. As such on Annexure P -4, the cover note of new policy of Hyundai car, he was allowed 'No Claim Bonus' @ 45%. No other question was asked, either by OP No.1, or OP No. 2, and no terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant. It was further stated that the new car, which was purchased on 24.11.2008, met with an accident on 19.12.2008, and the matter was duly reported to OP No. 1 and OP No. 2, along with all the necessary documents. OP No. 2 promised cashless repairs, as committed by it, in the Order Form. OP No. 2 refused to hand over the possession of the car, after the completion of repairs, on the pretext, that the claim was pending for settlement with OP No. 1. It was told by OP No. 1 that the previous policy of Maruti Car could not be cancelled, as the same was overlooked by their staff. Thereafter, the complainant was advised to get the policy cancelled. It was further stated that to get his claim settled, upon assurance given by OP No.1, he got the policy cancelled on 15.1.2009, and an amount of Rs. 1,228 was refunded by OP No.1, to the complainant. The complainant had to pay towing charges along with an amount of Rs.74,950. out of his own pocket, despite cashless insurance, to get the delivery of the duly repaired Hyundai i10 car Sportz, vide receipt dated 29.1.2009 Annexure P -12. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated, on the ground, that the insurance policy, which he was having, in respect of his old car, was not got cancelled by him, before taking the insurance policy of the new car, and 'No Claim Bonus'. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service. Left with no other alternative, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, claiming reimbursement of insurance claim of Rs. 74,950; towing charges of Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 23,000 as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

(3.) OP No. 1 put in appearance, and filed written reply. The factum with regard to the insurance of the vehicle and the occurrence of the accident on 19.12.2008, was admitted. OP No. 1, however, pleaded that the complainant by not getting the earlier policy cancelled (on the basis of which, he had claimed 'No Claim Bonus'), played a fraud upon it. It was stated that transfer of the old vehicle (CH -03 -K -1801) was applied for, by the complainant, only in the month of January, 2009, after the date of accident of the new vehicle. It was further stated that the complainant submitted the transferred RC dated 22.6.2009 to OP -1, which clearly showed that till 21.6.2009, the complainant was the registered owner of the old vehicle. It was further stated that the complainant could not have transferred the NCB on the new vehicle, without the sale of the old vehicle. It was further stated that, in these circumstances, there was no deficiency in rendering service, on the part of OP No. 1.