Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/98/2011

Dalbir Singh Aged 57 Years S/o Hargobind Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Aggarwal

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 98 of 2011.

Date of institution: 03.02.2011

Date of decision: 21.03.2017

 

Dalbir Singh aged about 57 years son of Sh. Hargobind Singh, resident of H. No. B-9/1048-A, Ward No.20, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                  

                        …Complainant.

                                             Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. G.E. Plaza Airport Road, Yarwada, Pune-411006 through its General Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Claims Department,) S.C.O. No. 329, Sector-9, Panchkula through its Manager.
3. Mr. Robin Kamboj son of Shri Daman Kamboj, House No. 347, Kaharan Gali, Opp. Devi Bhawan Mandir, Jagadhri-135003, Mobile No. 09896648323 now working at Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 167/18C, 2^nd Floor Hazara Singh Building, Near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt. 133001, Phone No. 0171-4007034.                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri Anil Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

                       OP No.3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is registered owner of the Maruti Alto bearing registration No. HR-02U-6017, which he purchased from previous owner i.e. Subedar Amarpal Singh on 19.04.2010. The said car was transferred in the name of complainant but in the meantime the insurance of the said vehicle had expired and the complainant got the same renewed in the name of previous owner Subedar Amarpal Singh vide insurance cover note No. BZ0803720753 valid from 12.05.2010 to 11.05.2012. When, on 26.06.2010, son of the complainant was going to Jind and at about 6.30 P.M., the car of the complainant met with an accident after dashing into a tree and due to that heavy loss was caused to the car in question. After that, complainant immediately informed the Ops Insurance Company, upon which, one surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Sagar was appointed who assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 60,349/- vide his report dated 28.06.2010. After that complainant got repaired his car and spent Rs. 67,607/-. Besides this, an amount of Rs. 2600/- was also given to one Hemraj for crane service for taking vehicle to Karnal. The OPs Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2010 on flimsy ground and it was mentioned in the letter that “as per All India Motor Tariff Formulated by IRDA there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking the insurance policy as well as at the time of loss, in this particular claim the same was not in position”.  Lastly prayed for directing the OPs Insurance Company to pass the claim of complainant i.e. Rs. 70,207/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 26.06.2010 till its realization and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement whereas Op No.3 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.05.2015. OPs No. 1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company, complainant has no locus standi  to file the present complaint; there is no privity of contract between the parties. It has been admitted that the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company had insured one car bearing registration No. HR-02U-6017 in the name of Sh. Amarpal Singh son of Sh. Hargobind Singh vide insurance cover note No. BZ0803720753 valid w.e.f. 12.05.2010 to 11.05.2011 for insured’s declared value of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 26.06.2010 and on this a claim was lodged with the OPs Insurance company and on receipt of the claim intimation, the OPs Insurance Company immediately started processing the claim and Sh. Sagar Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor  was deputed to conduct the survey. The said surveyor conducted the survey on 29.06.2010 and after taking into account all the damages and on applying relevant depreciation clause assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 47,748/- vide his report dated 09.09.2010 subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been further mentioned that the surveyor in his report dated 09.09.2010 specifically pointed out that the vehicle in question has been sold and R.C. has been transferred but the insurance policy is in the name of old owner. On receipt of the said report, the claim of the complainant was duly processed and the company on scrutiny of the documents observed that at the material time of damage to the vehicle, the insurance policy stood in the name of Sh. Amarpal Singh whereas the vehicle in question stood registered in the name of Sh. Dalbir Singh. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the OPs Insurance Company vide its registered letter dated 07.07.2010 brought this fact to the knowledge of Sh. Amarpal Singh, insured and he was desired to explain within 7 days as to why the claim in question should not be repudiated for the abovesaid reason as there must exist an insurable interest at the time of taking of the insurance policy as well as at the time of loss which was absent in this case. The insured made no reply to the letter of the company dated 07.07.2010 and in such circumstances, the OPs Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide registered letter dated 15.07.2010 addressed to Sh. Amarpal Singh for the reason stated above and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of affidavit for purchase of vehicle as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of receipt for transfer of vehicle as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of Insurance Policy as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of estimate of repairs as Annexure C-8 and C-9, Photo copy of invoice/cash memo as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of receipt of crane charges as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of certificate issued by postal department as Annexure C-12, Photo copy of  E.mail as Annexure C-13, Photo copy of letter dated 07.07.2010 as Annexure C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sachin Ohri, Senior Legal Executive Bajaj Allianz as Annexure R1/A and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1/1, Photo copy of letter dated 07.07.2010 as Annexure R-1/2, Photo copy of final survey report as Annexure R-1/3, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter dated 17.07.2010 as Annexure R1/4, Photo copy of G.R. 17 of Motor Vehicle Act as Annexure R-1/5, Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure R-1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company is that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the car in question as on the date of accident i.e. on 26.06.2010, the Insurance Policy bearing No. BZ0803720753 was standing in the name of said Subedar Amarpal Singh previous owner of the car in question. Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company further draw our attention towards the affidavit of Suberdar Amarpal Singh Annexure C-1 and argued that as per this affidavit complainant Dalbir Singh purchased the car in question on 19.04.2010 and after that obtained the Insurance Policy in question on 12.05.2010 valid upto 11.05.2011 without disclosing the facts to the Insurance Company that he had purchased the car in question from one Subedar Amarpal Singh on 19.04.2010.  Learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company further argued that as per Motor Vehicle Act, it is mandatory to get the insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days after the purchase of vehicle in question but in the present case, complainant has totally failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name within the stipulated period of 14 days as he purchased the car in question on 19.04.2010 and the registration certificate of the car in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 16.06.2010. Even after that also, the complainant has never applied to the Ops Insurance Company to transfer the insurance policy in his name and draw the attention of this Forum towards the case law titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Anita Mahajan & Another, 2016(3) CLT Page 4 National Commission wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Theft of insured vehicle- despite of selling vehicle, previous owner obtained insurance policy in his name- Insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and transferee of the vehicle- Even if it is a case of renewal of insurance policy, the previous owner was under obligation to inform the Insurance Company that the subject vehicle has been sold- Subsequent owner was not the party to the insurance contract as such his insurance claim was rightly repudiated. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company on the flimsy ground whereas it is duly evident from the copy of registration certificate Annexure C-4 that complainant is registered owner since 16.06.2010 and referred the case law titled as Mallamma (dead) by LRs Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2014(2) ACJ page 45 Supreme Court wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Ss. 157, 103- Insurance- Transfer of ownership- Whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner- Policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required u/s 103 of the Act is not given to the insurer.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as from the perusal of copy of affidavit Annexure C-1 and admission of the complainant himself in para No. 2 of the complaint, it is duly evident that the complainant purchased the car in question from said Subedar Amarpal Singh on 19.04.2010 and he obtained the insurance policy on 12.05.2010 and on that day also the complainant failed to disclose this fact to the OPs Insurance Company and got the insurance policy in the name of previous owner for the reasons best known to him. Further the complainant cannot take the benefit of section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act as the complainant has totally failed to place on file any documentary evidence vide which he ever applied to the OPs Insurance Company within fourteen days to transfer the Insurance policy in his name.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above and law referred by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the OPs Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs Insurance Company as the policy in question was stands in the name of previous owner Subedar Amarpal Singh on the date of accident i.e. on 26.06.2010. The case law titled as Mallamma (dead) by LRs Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others (supra) is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the case law referred by the counsel for the OPs titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Anita Mahajan & Another (supra) is identical to the facts of the present case.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 21.03.2017.                                        

                                                                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                               DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                               (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                MEMBER