ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs RAJ KUMAR BANSAL

THIS appeal was filed with delay of 17 days. An application of condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. Reasons have been given in this application which caused the delay in filing the appeal. This application is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that delay is not intentional and is liable to be condoned. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is allowed with all just exceptions an delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Case: raj Kumar Bansal, respondent had purchased one Motor Car known as Ford Ikon Diesel 1. 8 EXL, Colour Panther Block bearing Chassis No. 4ya8455 Engine No. 4ya8455 from M/s. Harpreet Motors Private Limited, Shiva Ji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on 27. 1. 2005 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,55,271. The delivery of this vehicle was made to the respondent by the dealers on 27. 1. 2005 at about 6. 25 p. m. It was insured by the appellants vide Cover Note No. CHC383489 after charging a premium of Rs. 22,387. The insurance policy was valid from 27. 1. 2005 to 26. 1. 2006. The vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank, Branch Patiala and the Invoice was issued by M/s. Harpreet Motors Private Limited on 28. 1. 2005. The appellants issued the cover note but the effective date was wrongly shown as 28. 1. 2005 to 27. 1. 2006. Temporary Registration No. 0127 was allotted to this car. After purchasing this car, the respondent left the New Delhi on 27. 1. 2005 itself. It was raining and he had crossed about 5-7 kms. from Rajpura Town when this car met with an accident and it was badly damaged. It was got repaired from M/s. Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. , Chandigarh and bill for an amount of Rs. 1,69,709 dated 18. 2. 2005 was issued by M/s. Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. , Chandigarh. The claim was lodged with the appellants but they repudiated the claim. Hence respondent filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short ''the District Forum'' ).

THE appellants filed the written statement. It was admitted that the insurance policy in respect of a new Ford Ikon Car for the period from 28. 1. 2005 to 27. 1. 2006 was issued. It was denied for want of knowledge if Raj Kumar was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Bansal Metal Works. But it was pleaded that this car was purchased by M/s. Bansal Metal Works bearing Chasis No. 4ya8455 and Engine No. 4y8455 from M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi. It was denied if the car was purchased on 27. 1. 2005 and it was pleaded that the car was purchased on 28. 1. 2005. It was admitted that premium to the tune of Rs. 22,387 was charged. It was admitted that temporary Registration Number of the Car was DL-4-TC-0127 and Trade Certificate No. DL-1 TEMP-M-599 was assigned to the car on 28. 1. 2005. It was denied if the vehicle was damaged badly in the accident or if it was got repaired from M/s. Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. Surveyor was appointed by the appellants who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,55,720. 48. It was also pleaded that since the vehicle was not insured at the time when the accident took place, therefore, respondent was not entitled to any amount of indemnification. The learned District Forum considered the documents on the file and pleadings of the parties and vide impugned order dated 26. 10. 2006 accepted the complaint with cost of Rs. 1,000. The appellants were directed to pay to the respondent the claim amount as per the final survey report with compensation in the form of interest @ 9% per annum from two months after the submission of the report till payment.

Hence the appeal.

IT was submitted by the appellants that the dealers of this car namely M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi were the agents of the appellants who were duly authorized to issue the insurance policy. It was admitted that the amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 22,387 was deposited by the respondent with M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi, as the premium for the insurance policy and cover note bearing No. CHC383489 dated 27. 1. 2005 was issued and the period from 27. 1. 2005 to 26. 1. 2006 was covered. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the Cover Note has been issued by M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi in connivance with the respondent and it is not a genuine Cover Note. It was also submitted that the period of policy was the period mentioned in the insurance policy and not the period mentioned in the Cover Note.

BOTH these submissions have been considered. It is not disputed that insurance policy has been issued in pursuance of Cover Note dated 27. 1. 2005. It means, therefore, that the insurance policy covers the same period which is mentioned in the Cover Note and deals with the vehicle which is entered in the Cover Note. The insurance policy also relates to the person who is shown to be the owner of this car. The Cover Note contains all these particulars relating to the respondent and he has been shown to be the owner of the insured car. Chassis Number and Engine Number of the car have been given and the period of insurance has been given as 27. 1. 2005 to 26. 1. 2006. Since the insurance policy has been issued in pursuance of the Cover Note, therefore, these two documents have to be given the same meaning. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Cover Note relates to the vehicle which is a two-wheeler and not to car. Therefore, the Cover Note will be of no use to the respondent.

THIS submission has been considered. It is not disputed that the cover note relates to the respondent as the owner of the vehicle bearing Chassis No. 4ya8455 and Engine No. 4ya8455. It may be that it has been mentioned as a two-wheeler but the vehicle was the car. Moreover, the insurance policy has been issued in pursuance of the Cover Note, therefore, the insurance policy and the Cover Note have to be read as relating to one vehicle and not to two vehicles. Therefore, since in the Cover Note, the period of insurance policy starts from 27. 1. 2005, therefore, the insurance policy starts from 27. 1. 2005 and endures till 26. 1. 2006.

IT was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the delivery of this car was taken by the respondent from M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 28. 1. 2005, therefore, it cannot be believed if the insurance policy had taken place on 27. 1. 2005. This submission has been considered. It has no merits. The delivery of the vehicle has taken place on 27. 1. 2005 in the evening. The vehicle was being taken to Ludhiana side and it had met with an accident near Rajpura. This fact itself rules out the possibility if the delivery of the vehicle was taken on 28. 1. 2005 when the accident had taken place on 27. 1. 2005 near Rajpura in which this vehicle was involved.

Since the respondent had made the payment of premium on 27. 1. 2005 for the insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 22,387 and since the Cover Note was issued for this car for the period from 27. 1. 2005 to 26. 1. 2006, therefore, the insurance policy shall be deemed to have come into existence on 27. 1. 2005 itself.

THERE is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Since the appellants have filed a frivolous appeal, therefore, the appellants are burdened with a cost of Rs. 5,000. An amount of Rs. 25,000 was deposited by the appellants with this Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount be remitted by the Registry to the respondent by way of crossed bank draft/cheque after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. Appeal dismissed.