AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1375/2010 dated 10.05.2018.
The Respondent/Complainant purchased a Tavera vehicle for personal use, bearing Registration No. GJ-5-CD-931 on 01.09.2004 from Empire Motors, Surat for Rs.6,24,450/- by taking a loan from ICICI Bank. The Respondent had taken insurance for the said vehicle from the Petitioner from 29.08.2006 to 02.08.2007 for Rs.4,69,600/-. The Respondent paid the Petitioner Rs.18,956/- as insurance premium.The Respondent gave his car for repair and sale to Harishbhai Rambhai Mistri, resident of Navsari, a dealer engaged in the business of purchase and sale of vehicles. On 01.07.2007, the car got stolen from Kaliyavadi Sona Chambers, Navsari. Intimation of theft was given to the Police and thereafter the Navsari Rural Police Station registered a complaint bearing Crime Register No. 84 of 2007. The vehicle was registered with the RTO, in the name of Respondent, insured with the Petitioner/Insurance Company and hypothecated with ICICI Bank.On theft of the car, the Complainant informed the Insurance Company and submitted his claim for insurance. However, on 09.10.2007, the insurance claim was repudiated by the Petitioner on the ground that "In Case of transfer of vehicle the transfer of insurance interest had not taken place." Aggrieved by the rejection of the Insurance Claim the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, filed a Complaint in the District Forum.
The Complaint was contested by the Petitioner in the District Forum denying the fact that the Respondent has handed over the vehicle to Harishbhai Mistri for repairing and selling and 25 days prior to the theft, the vehicle was sold by the Respondent to the broker/dealer Harishbhai Mistri but the name was not transferred in the R.C. Book. Further, it was contended that Harishbhai Mistri had himself lodged the complaint wherein he has mentioned that he has purchased the vehicle from the Respondent 25 days before theft of the vehicle. Hence, Complaint is not maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The District Forum, vide order dated 21.11.2009, partially allowed the complaint on the ground that no evidence was placed on record to support the fact that Harishbhai Mistri has given any amount to the Respondent in lieu of the alleged sale of the vehicle in question and that he has submitted any claim.Hence, the District Forum has directed Petitioner to pay Rs. 4,46,600/-to the Respondent against the insurance claim for his car. The Petitioner was further directed to pay interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 06.05.2008 till the actual date of payment, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- against the cost of the complaint.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondent. The State Commission, vide order dated 10.05.2018, rejected the appeal of the Petitioner and upheld the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that no evidence was supported by the Petitioner to prove the fact that Harishbhai had paid some amount towards purchase of the car in question to the Respondent.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He reiterated the arguments as already stated above.Also perused the record carefully.There is a delay of 9 days in filing the present Revision Petition.Delay is condoned as it is only minimal.
There is no dispute on the fact that the Respondent/Complainant purchased a Tavera car with registration no. GJ-5-CD9831 and the car was registered with Road Transport Officer in the Complainant's name.Complainant had also taken insurance for the car with the Petitioner/Insurance Company which was in force from 29.08.2006 to 28.07.2007.The value of the car was stated to be Rs.4,69,600/-.The car was stolen on 01.07.2007 and a complaint was duly registered with the Police.After due investigation, the Police Authorities have substantiated the factum of theft of the car and declared it not found.The Complainant submitted his insurance claim and the claim was promptly rejected by the Petitioner/Insurance Company on the pretext that though the car had been transferred, transfer of Insurance Policy had not taken place.
The Respondent handed over this car to broker/dealer Harish Bhai Mistri for selling it in Car Mela after colour, touch-up and repairing.At that time the car was stolen.The Respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle and had taken insurance policy for the same with the Petitioner/Insurance Company and there is no evidence that the car was sold to Harish Bhai Mistri, though it was stolen when it was in his custody.Though, the Harish Bhai Mistri made the Police Complaint he has not submitted any claim towards insurance.The claim was made by the Respondent only.There is no evidence on record to support the argument that Harish Bhai Mistri had given any amount to the Complainant in lieu of the alleged sale of the vehicle. From perusal of records and orders of both the Foras, it is seen that there is no evidence to prove the allegation of the Petitioner that the car in question was sold to Harishbhai Mistri. Further Harishbhai Mistri has not taken steps to transfer and register the vehicle in his name. The Respondent/Complainant being the registered owner of the car and having duly insured his vehicle, was very well within his rights to claim insurance for his lost vehicle from the Petitioner. The Respondent was owner of the vehicle and the Petitioner, the service provider. By repudiating the claim of the Respondent, the Petitioner has clearly committed deficiency in service and breach of contract. We find no error in the reasoning and order passed by both the District Forum as well as State Commission. Orders passed by both the Foras below are correct and justified.
The present Revision Petition is dismissed at admission stage and orders passed by both the District Forum as well as the State Commission are confirmed.