Haryana

StateCommission

A/379/2015

SURINDER SHARMA AND ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      379 of 2015

Date of Institution:      27.04.2015

Date of Decision :       13.08.2015

 

1.     Surinder Sharma s/o Sh. Darshan Lal, Resident of Village and Post Office Kesri, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. 

 

2.     Madhu Garg w/o Sh. Brij Bhushan Garg, Resident of House No.67-A, Housing Board Colony, Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

 

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Claims Department, SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Urban Estate, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

Present:               Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The unsuccessful complainants are in appeal against the order dated March 24^th, 2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panchkula, whereby the complaint filed by them was dismissed.

2.      Surinder Sharma-appellant No.1 sold his motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-54-9206 to Madhu Garg-appellant No.2 on May 11^th, 2012. Affidavits Annexure R-5 and R-7 to this effect were executed by seller and purchaser, respectively. The vehicle was insured with Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-opposite party, for the period from May 14^th, 2012 to May 13^th, 2013. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.46,750/-, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1.  

3.      The appellant No.1 (seller) also applied for obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Registering Authority, Barara, District Ambala, where the motor cycle was registered and after getting NOC, the appellant No.2 (purchaser) had to apply to the Registering Authority, Kalka for transfer/registration of the vehicle in his name.  However, before the motor cycle could be transferred in the name of purchaser, it was stolen during the intervening night of December 13^th/14^th, 2012 from the residence of appellant No.2. The Police was informed immediately and F.I.R. No.148 (Annexure C-3) was lodged in Police Station, Kalka on the same day, that is, December 14^th, 2012. Intimation was also given to the Insurance Company. Untraced Report (Annexure C-4) was submitted by the Police. The appellant No.2 filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter (Annexure C-5), the extract of which is as under:- 

“Please refer to your claim and our letter dated 11-Mar-13. We regret to inform you that we have not received any response regarding the following observation which requires clarification from your end.

On scrutiny of the documents submitted by your good self, it is observed that at the material time of loss the vehicle was under possession of Mrs.Madhu Garg where as the insurance policy was in the name of Mr. Surinder Sharma hence you have no insurance contract with us.

Please note that as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist Insurable contract at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss, in this particular claim the same was not in position. In the circumstance, we are not liable under the policy terms and condition in respect of the above loss. We therefore sincerely regret our inability to be of assistance on this occasion.

In the view of above kindly let us know within seven days from the date of this letter as to why your claim should not be repudiated. This is without prejudice to our right to repudiate our liability on any specific ground/grounds which are available to us for the time being or which may be available to us in future, which may please be noted.”

4.      Aggrieved of the action of the Insurance Company, the appellants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum.

5.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply while reiterating the contents stated in the repudiation letter. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.      It is not disputed that the appellant No.1 had sold the motor cycle to the appellant No.2. It has also come on the record that the motor cycle was registered with Registering Authority, Barara, District Ambala, that is, residence address of the appellant No.1 while the appellant No.2 (purchaser) was residing at Kalka and he has to get the motor cycle registered with the Registering Authority, Kalka, District Panchkula. Since the Registering Authority was different from where the change of ownership of the motor cycle was to be effected, therefore, NOC was applied by the appellant No.1 (seller) and the same was supplied on November 6^th, 2012. While the change of ownership was under process, the motor cycle was stolen during the intervening night of December 13^th/14^th, 2012.

7.      The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent was that under GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff , the Insurance Policy was to be transferred in favour of the purchaser after change of the ownership in his name within fourteen days from the date of its transfer.

8.      General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act provides as under:-

“GR.17. Transfers

On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the   person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.

In case of Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.

 A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.

Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed.  The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued.”

9.      In view of the above, the plea raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is not tenable. In terms of above Regulation, the purchaser/transferee had to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer of the ownership with respect to the motor cycle, to the insurer for making necessary changes and issue of fresh certificate of insurance and that stage had not come in the instant case. Therefore, GR-17 was not attracted.

10.    Besides, the seller and proposed vendee, both are the appellants-complainants and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the insured amount to the registered owner of the vehicle. The purchaser has no objection if the benefits of insurance are given to the seller, that is, the registered owner. The seller and purchaser, both have filed the instant complaint jointly.  

11.    In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the complaint, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the insured amount to appellant No.1 – Surinder Sharma-registered owner, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

 

 

Announced 13.08.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL