PolicyWala
26-03-2009, 08:14 PM
SANTOKH SINGH VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant bought a second hand
Maruti Zen Car from its original owner in the year 1999. The car was insured in the name of the original owner and it met with an accident thereby injuring the complainant also. The vehicle was sent for repairs and a claim was lodged with the insurer who further appointed a surveyor. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 44243/- by the surveyor. The police report was also made and a copy of the same sent to the insurer. Due to difficulty in getting the genuine spare parts and financial constraints there was delay in getting the car repaired. In the meanwhile the insurer sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit various documents along with the registration book of the vehicle failing which the case will be closed as ‘no claim’. When the vehicle was finally ready the insurer was informed of this fact and the insurer appointed a second surveyor to assess the loss. The second surveyor reduced the loss to Rs. 29855/-. Hence a complaint was filed claiming the damages and interest along with the amount of loss assessed by the first surveyor. Before the learned district forum the contention raised by the insurer was that since there was no contract of insurance entered between the complainant and the insurance company therefore the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not the competent person to file the same. The district forum gave decision in favour of the insurer on the ground that the policy of insurance issued by the insurer, in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the car could not be enforced for laying a claim in respect of aforesaid vehicle as the provisions of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicles Act were applicable but in respect of risk of third parties only.
The complainant filed an appeal before the state commission. Before the appellate court the stand of the appellant/complainant was that the provisions of GR-10 of India Motor Tariff incorporated by the Tariff Advisory Committee enabled the transferee of the vehicle and the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle to claim the benefits of the policy of insurance. Secondly, according to a circular issued by the Head Office of the insurer corporation, based on a Supreme Court decision was sent to all the concerned departments of the insurer regarding the automatic transfer of the insurance in favour of new owners/purchasers of vehicles clearly extended benefits of the policy with reference to the vehicle transferred infavour of the transferee and decided that the provisions of GR-10 and the said circular was binding on the insurer and hence it could not close the file as no claim. The appellate court also held that the insurer was not competent to appoint a second surveyor simply because the report of the first surveyor was not acceptable to it.
Held: Claim allowed for Rs. 44243/- and costs Rs. 500/-.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant bought a second hand
Maruti Zen Car from its original owner in the year 1999. The car was insured in the name of the original owner and it met with an accident thereby injuring the complainant also. The vehicle was sent for repairs and a claim was lodged with the insurer who further appointed a surveyor. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 44243/- by the surveyor. The police report was also made and a copy of the same sent to the insurer. Due to difficulty in getting the genuine spare parts and financial constraints there was delay in getting the car repaired. In the meanwhile the insurer sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit various documents along with the registration book of the vehicle failing which the case will be closed as ‘no claim’. When the vehicle was finally ready the insurer was informed of this fact and the insurer appointed a second surveyor to assess the loss. The second surveyor reduced the loss to Rs. 29855/-. Hence a complaint was filed claiming the damages and interest along with the amount of loss assessed by the first surveyor. Before the learned district forum the contention raised by the insurer was that since there was no contract of insurance entered between the complainant and the insurance company therefore the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not the competent person to file the same. The district forum gave decision in favour of the insurer on the ground that the policy of insurance issued by the insurer, in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the car could not be enforced for laying a claim in respect of aforesaid vehicle as the provisions of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicles Act were applicable but in respect of risk of third parties only.
The complainant filed an appeal before the state commission. Before the appellate court the stand of the appellant/complainant was that the provisions of GR-10 of India Motor Tariff incorporated by the Tariff Advisory Committee enabled the transferee of the vehicle and the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle to claim the benefits of the policy of insurance. Secondly, according to a circular issued by the Head Office of the insurer corporation, based on a Supreme Court decision was sent to all the concerned departments of the insurer regarding the automatic transfer of the insurance in favour of new owners/purchasers of vehicles clearly extended benefits of the policy with reference to the vehicle transferred infavour of the transferee and decided that the provisions of GR-10 and the said circular was binding on the insurer and hence it could not close the file as no claim. The appellate court also held that the insurer was not competent to appoint a second surveyor simply because the report of the first surveyor was not acceptable to it.
Held: Claim allowed for Rs. 44243/- and costs Rs. 500/-.