Haryana

StateCommission

A/370/2015

BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

15 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.370 of 2015

Date of Institution:23.04.2015

 Date of decision:15.12.2015

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., S.C.O. No.329, Sector-9, Panchkula.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Singh R/o H.No.147 Gali No.4, Moti Nagar, Karnal.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. Ashok Kumar respondent in person.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The case of the complainant(respondent) is that he purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-45-7396 from Subhash Chander as per agreement dated 18.10.2007 for Rs.3,90,000/- out of which Rs.2,25,000/- were paid in cash and remaining amount was to be paid in installments.  The vehicle was insured with the opposite party (O.P.).  During the subsistence of insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 25.09.2010.  The matter was reported to the O.P., but, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 24.11.2010 on the ground that he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle.

2.      O.P. alleged that after the purchase of the vehicle complainant did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name and was not entitled for any compensation.  The insurance policy was in the name of Subhash Chander at the time of accident.  Objections about accruing cause of action, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept  the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of 75% of the amount as assessed by the surveyor vide report dated 12.11.2010, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.01.2011 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Complainant argued in person that from the perusal of cover note Ex.C-10 it is clear that he paid the premium and was insured.  It was told by the insurance people that when he had paid the premium there was no necessity to get the insurance policy transferred in his name.  The learned District Forum has rightly granted  the compensation as mentioned vide impugned order dated 26.02.2015 while relying upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC Civil appeal No.2703 of 2010 decided on  25.08.2010.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  If complainant paid the premium it does not mean that he was having insurable.  It is specifically mentioned in Ex.C-10 that  Subhash Chander was the insured person. After purchase of the vehicle he should have got the insurance policy transferred in his name as provided under
GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 (In Short “M.V.Act”).  In the present case complainant did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name and was not having any contract with the appellant.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with this point in M/s Complete Insulations (p) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 1996 AIR 586, SCC (1) 221.  Hon’ble National Commission has also dealt with this point in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Reeta 1 (2013) CPJ 24 B (NC) (CN) and in revision petition No.2964 of 2007 titled as M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Goli Sridhar decided on 22.11.2011.  Hon’ble Supreme Court opined in M/s Complete Insulations case (supra) as under:-

“It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of  the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor  vehicle is transferred”.  If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well e.g.  damage caused to the vehicle of the insured of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle.  In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the national commission is thereby correct.”

Relevant Para Nos.6 and 7 in Oriental insurance company Ltd. Vs. Reeta (supra) are as under:-

“6.     Plain reading of GR.17 shows that the in case of  package policy, the policy will be transferred only on compliance with the following conditions- (i) on specific request of transferee with consent letter of transferor, (ii) fresh proposal form from transferee duly signed (iii) acceptable evidence of sale, (iv) surrender of earlier certificate  of insurance, (v) on payment of Rs.50/- for issuance of fresh certificate in the name of the transferee.

7.      In the present case, the insurance policy had not   been transferred in the name of the respondent.  As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as provisions of India Motor Tariff, the claim of the respondent is not maintainable and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.  In the case of package policies, transfer of own damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee is made applicable to the insurer only on receipt of specific consent from the transferee along with consent of the transferor.  Therefore, in terms of GR.17 also, the claim was rightly been repudiated by the Insurance Company.”        

8.      This case is fully covered by the opinion expressed by Hon’ble  Supreme Court and National Commission  in the aforesaid case laws.  Respondent-complainant cannot derive     any benefit from Amalendu Sahoo’s case because that is based on altogether different facts. In that case question of mode of use of vehicle was involved and not the transfer of insurance policy.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.  So impugned order dated 26.02.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

 

December 15th, , 2015	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl. Member		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl. Member
S.K