DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==================

Dhanpat Rai Singla, Advocate s/o Sh. Daulat Ram Singla, r/o H.No.34, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Office, SCO No. 139-140, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head.

[2]    Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Claims Department, SCO No. 329, Sector 9, Panchkula, through its Branch Head.

[3]    Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune – 411006, through its Chief Executive.

---- Opposite Parties

[4]    Aman Chaudhary C/o Sh. Dhanpat Rai Singla, R/o H.No. 34, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

---- Proforma Respondent

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. R.C. Gupta, Adv. for Complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OPs No.1, 2 & 3.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.4.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.             The Complainant had purchased a Maruti Esteem Car No. CH-01-R-0058 from Opposite Party No.4 against a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. The date of purchase as per the complaint is 04.01.2010. However, as per the affidavit of the Complainant at Annexure C-2, the date of purchase of vehicle is 15.01.2007. The vehicle was being used for personal use.

                Complainant has further stated that all payments with regard to renewal of annual insurance against the said car were being made by him to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, after the date of purchase. The representative of the Opposite Party was also aware that the vehicle had been bought by the Complainant and the payment was being made by the Complainant. But the policy was being issued in the name of Opposite Party No.4 only. The representative had stated that when the Registration Certificate was transferred in the name of the Complainant, the Policy would be endorsed in the name of the transferee. 

                As per the version of the Complainant the policy for the relevant period was valid from 28.09.2009 to 27.09.2010 for an I.D.V. of Rs.1,42,000/-. The signatures of the Complainant are also on the cover note. Unfortunately, this vehicle was stolen on 4/5.1.2010 between 9.30 PM to 6.30 AM from the in-laws house of the Complainant at Kurukshetra. The car at that time was properly parked and duly locked. An F.I.R. was registered with the City Police Station, Kurukshetra on 05.01.2010 (Annex.C-3)

                The Complainant thereafter lodged his claim with the OPs. The OPs deputed an Investigator and Loss Assessor who got all the relevant claim papers signed from the Complainant on 22.01.2010. All requisite formalities were completed by the Complainant. However, he was surprised when he received a letter dated 27.02.2010 that a clarification was needed with regard to ownership of the vehicle vis-à-vis the insurance contract. Subsequently, the Complainant received another letter dated 0803.2010, wherein the claim had been repudiated. All correspondence between the parties regarding the claim are from Annexure C-6 to C-10, respectively.

                As the claim for the stolen car has not been paid by the OPs, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with a request that the OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.1,42,000/- towards I.D.V. of the stolen car, along with compensation and cost of litigation.   

2.             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.             Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 in reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant is not a “Consumer” qua them as per Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the present complaint is not maintainable in his favour.

                OPs have further submitted that the said vehicle was insured in the name of Opposite Party No.4 for the period 28.09.2008 to 27.09.2009 as per the terms and conditions contained in the certificate of policy. At the time of loss the Complainant had no privity of contract with the OPs as per the terms of the Policy. Even though the vehicle had been purchased by the Complainant from Opposite Party No. 4 as stated in the complaint, the registered owner of the vehicle was still Opposite Party No. 4 and hence, in the absence of any insurable interest, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are not liable to make any payment qua the claim in question.  Even as per the certificate of insurance, Opposite Party No. 4 is the owner & insurer of the vehicle.

                OPs have placed reliance on Form G.R. 17 of the India Motor Tariff Act which relates to transfer of vehicles. As per G.R. 17:-

“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 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 change in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.” 

                Relying on the fact that the transferee has not applied for transfer of the insurance in his own name, as per the requirements above, the OPs have stated that they have no liability towards him as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.

                On merits, OPs have reiterated the above submissions. Also stating that the Policy still stands in the name of Opposite Party No.4, the OPs have submitted that they have rightly repudiated the claim. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Opposite Party No. 4 in reply has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint against him is not maintainable, as the car on the date of the alleged loss was not owned and possessed by him.

                On merits, Opposite Party No. 4 has admitted the sale of the vehicle to the Complainant. However, it is correct that the Registration certificate of the car could not be transferred in the name of the Complainant even though he was in actual possession and was using the same. Opposite Party No. 4 has not made any payment of premium for the insurance.  Stating that the rest of the averments are not in his knowledge, Opposite Party No. 4 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.             It is evident from the facts and material placed on record that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Esteem car from Opposite Party No. 4 in the year 2007, but had not been able to get the vehicle transferred in his name. The reasons for the delay in transfer have not been given by either the Complainant or the Opposite Party No.4.  The insurance of the car was issued by OPs No.1 to 3 for each succeeding year in the name of Opposite Party No. 4 who continues to be the registered owner even though the Complainant had been making payment for the said insurance.

8.             In case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1528 of 2007, decided by the Hon’ble the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 18.10.2011, it has been held as under:-

“In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the Policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle. Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.”  

                In this cited case also, as the insurance of the car had expired the Complainant had got the policy renewed in the name of the previous owner. Relying on G.R.17 regarding transfer of insurance policy, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the transferee was required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer along with details of registration of the vehicle, so that a new insurance policy be issued in his name, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had decided in favour of the Insurance company.

                The Hon’ble National Commission also held that:-

“It would be seen that on receipt of the information from the transferee the Insurance Company is required to make changes in its record and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance. In the present case, admittedly as pointed out earlier the transferee i.e. Respondent did not get the vehicle transferred in his name and intimate the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle within 14 days of the registration in his name to enable the Petitioner to make necessary changes in its record and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance. The transferee did not get any novation of contract of insurance in respect of the person or property and therefore, Respondent did not have any insurable interest on the date on which the vehicle met with an accident.”

9.             In similar circumstances and on identical facts, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission in case Dharmendra Nath Thakur and Jyotindra Nath Thakur both sons of Shri Jivendra Nath Thakur Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Division Manager, decided on 29.01.2010, has held that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle. 

10.           Relying on the above judgments, as well as the factual position of the instant complaint, we also feel that the Complainant does not have any insurable interest in the vehicle, as he has not got the vehicle transferred in his name as per the statutory requirements. The complaint is accordingly dismissed against OPs No. 1 to 3 as the Complainant is not a consumer qua them.

        The complaint against Opposite Party No.4 is also dismissed as no allegation has been levelled against him. He is only the registered owner of the stolen car, purchased by the Complainant. Hence, no cause of action has accrued against him in favour of the Complainant. No costs.

11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th January, 2012.                                                       

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER