DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 204 of 18-07-2007<br /> Decided on : 13-11-2007<br /> <br /> Gurtej Singh S/o Sh. Jugraj Singh R/o Village Gill Patti, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Near New Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, lLudhiana, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 4110076, through its Managing Director. <br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajan Singla, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Sh. Gursahib Singh S/o Sh.Gurjant Singh resident of Village Burj Mehma, Tehsil & District Bathinda was the registered owner of Ford Fiesta Car bearing Registration No. PB-03N-8898 . He got it comprehensively insured with opposite party No. 1 vide Cover Note No. 100001675711. Insurance was valid from 2.1.06 to 1.1.07. Car was sold by him to the complainant who got its registration certificate transferred in his name on 27.12.06. It had met with an accident on 29.12.06 in the revenue limits of Police Station, Tapa and was extensively damaged. F.I.R. No. 100 dated 29.12.06 under Section 279/337/338/304-A was registered in Police Station, Tapa. Accident was reported by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on 30.12.06. Officials of opposite party No. 1 had also made a line with the officials of opposite party No. 2. Sh. Rajpal Singhal was deputed to assess the loss caused to the vehicle. As per direction of the opposite parties, this vehicle was got repaired from Bhagat Ford. A sum of Rs. 1,00,363/- was spent and paid to Bhagat Ford against invoices No. 29725 to 29727 dated 30.1.07. Claim was submitted by the complainant with the opposite parties vide No. QC-07-1203-18010002572-00002572 for claiming the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,363/- incurred by him for repairs on the ground that car was duly insured. Opposite parties did not settle the claim despite repeated requests. Opposite party No. 1 told that insurance cover note is still in the name of the previous owner i.e. Sh. Gursahib Singh which is required to be changed in his name. He (complainant) deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 50/- vide Demand Draft No. 789713 dated 27.1.06 (Infact 27.1.07) drawn on Union Bank of India and sent the same to the opposite parties. He wrote letter to the opposite parties on 7.3.07 requesting them to settle the claim, but to no effect. He also got issued registered A.D. post legal notice to the opposite parties through counsel, but in vain. To the contrary, they repudiated his lawful claim without sufficient cause saying that coverage is in the name Gursahib Singh and not in his name. He alleges that act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension, agony, botheration and financial loss. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1,00,363/-; Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and Rs. 5500/- towards cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint as they have no privity of contract with him and he is a stranger; he is not consumer; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; he is estoppped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. On merits, their plea is that Sh. Gursahib Singh is the registered owner of the car. Sh.Gurjant Singh is the subsequent owner i.e. transferee. Car was got comprehensively insured by Sh. Gursahib Singh. Information regarding accident was given by the complainant on 30.12.06 on behalf of Sh. Gursahib Singh. Insurance claim was registered by them and Sh. Rajpal Singhal, Surveyor was deputed for assessing the loss. Complainant had submitted the estimates/bills for Rs. 1,00,363/- for repair charges which were highly excessive and exorbitant. After considering the bills, surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 80,094.50 after depreciation on parts according to the condition and model of the car and as per terms and condition as well as India Motor Tariff. On 28.3.07, they had rightly repudiated the claim being not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance in the name of Sh. Gursahib Singh had come to an end on 1.1.07. Complainant had intimated them on 27.1.07 for transfer of Insurance Policy. Repudiation letter was sent to Sh. Gursahib Singh. Complainant had sent registered legal notice on false and frivolous grounds. Transfer of policy is always with consideration on payment of transfer fee of Rs. 50/-, after giving proposal for the same and after acceptance of the proposal. It is not automatic. Ignorance of law is no defence. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Cover Note (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Registration Certificate (Ex. C-3), photocopy of F.I.R. (Ex. C-4), photocopy of retail invoices (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7), photocopy of application (Ex. C-8), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-11), photocopy of letter dated 20.6.07 (Ex. C-12) and photocopy of Demand Draft (Ex. C-13).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Vijay Dang, Manager and Raj Paul Singhal, Surveyor (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2) respectively, photocopy of India Motor Tariff/Rules Pages No. 7 & 8 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of letter dated 28.3.07 (Ex. R-4), photocopy of claim cost confirmation for repair (Ex. R-5) and photocopy of survey report (Ex. R-6) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Some are the undisputed facts. They are that Sh. Gursahib Singh was the registered owner of the car. Copy of the Registration Certificate is Ex. C-3. He had got it insured with the opposite parties and copy of the insurance cover note is Ex. C-2. Complainant purchased this vehicle from Sh. Gursahib Singh and got it transferred in his name as is evident from the entry in the registration certificate. Car had met with an accident on 29.12.06. Criminal case was registered regarding the accident in Police Station Tapa and copy of the F.I.R. is Ex. C-4. Insurance claim was lodged and was registered with the opposite parties. Complainant had issued legal notice to opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and copy of the same is Ex. C-11. Opposite parties repudiated the claim vide letter copy of which is Ex. R-4.<br /> 7. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that complainant was the registered owner in possession of the car on the day of accident i.e. 29.12.06. Car was comprehensively got insured by Sh. Gursahib Singh. Accident was reported to the opposite parties and insurance claim was lodged. Not to speak of this, even complainant had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 50/- through demand draft for getting the insurance transferred in his name. In these circumstances, opposite parties have illegally denied the claim. For this, he placed reliance on the authorities Kuruva Venkatanna Vs. J Lakshman Goud and another 2004 ACJ 1032 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bhopal Singh and Others 2006 ACJ 222.<br /> 8. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that accident had taken place on 29.12.06 and till that date, insurance policy was in the name of Sh. Gursahib Singh. Complainant did not get the insurance transferred in his name under the rules after purchasing the car. Claim was got investigated by the opposite parties from Sh. Raj Paul Singhal, Surveyor and his survey report is Ex. R-6 according to which he has assessed the net amount payable as Rs. 80,094.50. His affidavit to this effect is Ex. R-2. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as complainant is at fault in not getting the insurance transferred in his name well within time.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 10. Claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 28.3.07 intimating Sh. Gursahib Singh that at the material time of the damage to the car, he was the owner of the insurance policy whereas the registration book was in the name of Sh. Gurjant Singh (complainant). As per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss. Ex. R-3 is the copy of India Motor Tariff. According to it, transferee is required to comply within 14 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. A fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability only and Package policies. A fee of Rs. 50/- is to be collected for issuance of fresh certificate in the name of transferee. Admittedly in this case, car was insured in the name of Sh. Gursahib Singh for the period from 2.1.06 to 1.1.07. Complainant did not apply for transfer of the policy in this name by way of submitting fresh proposal form and depositing the requisite fee. He deposited Rs. 50/- for transfer of the policy on 27.1.07. Policy had come to an end on 1.1.07. So far as the authorities relied upon by the complainant are concerned, they are regarding liability for 3rd party. In this case, opposite parties who are the insurers cannot be saddled with the liability of paying claim particularly when the transferee i.e. the complainant did not get the policy transferred in his name. A person to whom the vehicle has been transferred would not be entitled to the benefit from the insurer for damage to the vehicle in the absence of a specific contract with the insurer covering risk or damage to the vehicle. Insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act extends only to the risk or damage to the property of third party. Deeming provision contained in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act would extend only to third party risk. Matter has been set at rest by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited II(1996) ACC 536 (SC). In that case, car was in the name of Mrs. Archana Wadhwa for which M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited had issued a comprehensive insurance policy. Car was transferred on 15.6.89 in the name of M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. On 17.9.89 it had met with an accident in which Managing Director of M/s. Complete Insulations had suffered serious injuries and his sister had died. It was a case of total loss of the Car. Insurance policy was not transferred upto the date of accident of the car. M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Limited had filed complaint before the Consumer Fora, Chandigarh which was accepted giving direction to pay Rs. 83,000/- i.e. insured value of the vehicle. Hon'ble National Commission had set aside the order. Appeal was preferred by M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Limited. It was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that a certificate of insurance is deemed to have been transferred under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred but that the said provision applies only in relation to third party risk and does not apply to policy covering risk of damage to the vehicle or person of the insured. In this case, complainant had no privity of contract with the opposite parties on the date of accident. He had no insurable interest. Accordingly, he is not entitled to any benefit under the policy. For this, reference can also be made to the authority United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Gomanbhai Ahir & Anr III(2005) CPJ 578 and Pratima Roy Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2006) CPJ 247.<br /> 11. In the light of the discussions made above, crux of the matter is that opposite parties have committed no error in repudiating the insurance claim. In other words, repudiation is legal and valid. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-11-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br />