w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Satwant Singh v/s United India Insurance Having Its Regional Office at Ludhiana, Through Dr. S.K. Takyar, Manager, Punjab

    Revision Petition No. 356 of 2016

    Decided On, 09 January 2017

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate. For the Respondent: ---------

Judgment Text

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 424/2012 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satwant Singh by which, appeal was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner got hi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

car bearing registration No. PB-02-AN-0224, insured from OP/Respondent for the period from 18.12.2009 to 17.12.2010 by paying the premium of Rs.11,469/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 30.5.2010 at Jandiala and an intimation regarding the loss caused to the vehicle was given to the OP. The surveyor appointed by the OP directed the complainant to take the vehicle for repair to the authorized service centre of Honda Company; Prestige Honda M/s. Lally Motors. The vehicle was repaired by the said authorized service centre at the cost of Rs.1,81,000/- plus Rs.11,000/- for other charges. The OP did not make the payment despite the fact that it was a cashless policy; so, the complainant made the payment to the repairer. He time and again approached the OP to make the payment of Rs.1,92,800/- but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that Insurance policy in question was in the name of one commercial concern namely M/s. Singh Brothers having office at 223-224, City Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, who was not the registered owner of the vehicle. Surveyor was appointed by the OP to investigate the matter of accident of the car Honda City bearing Regd. No. PB-02-AN-0224 and to assess the loss caused in the alleged accident. The insured had sold the car to someone else on 24.2.2007. Therefore, the insured had no insurable interest in the insurance policy of said car. The insured and the purchaser of the car had not intimated the OP within stipulated period regarding the transfer of title of the car nor have they made any request to change the name of the insured. Resultantly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as ‘No Claim’ by the OP vide letter dated 18.11.2010. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.192,800/- as repair charges with 9% p.a. interest along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.4. As there is delay of only 29 days in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint on the basis of registration of car in the name of complainant, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted.6. Perusal of record reveals that registration of damaged vehicle stands in the name of complainant, but insurance coverage was obtained for a period of one year from 19.12.2009 to 18.12.2010 in the name of M/s. Singh Brothers. Thus, it becomes clear that complainant did not obtain insurance coverage in his own name and in such circumstances, complainant was not entitled to claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in repair of the damaged vehicle. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint.7. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage.

Already A Member?