This is a case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by the complainant Chhaphul Rahman against the O.P. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for payment of Rs. 1,24,650/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) with compensation litigation cost and other reliefs. The case of the complainant supported by the document in their evidence-in-chief has clearly stated that the complainant has purchased second hand Alto Motor Car Bearing No. W.B. 74S/5985 from one Smt. Dipsika Sen Daughter of Smt. Durga Sen of Mainaguri, District Jalpaiguri on 18.04.2018.
On 24.10.2017 earlier owner Smt. Dipsikha Sen ensures the vehicle with the opposite party by paying private insurance premium of Rs. 4180/- (Four Thousand One Hundred Eighty Only).
Consequently, she paid the said amount vide policy no. OG-18-2404-1801-00005193 After purchasing the said vehicle from Smt. Dipsika Sen, he did not change his name in the insurance policy on 22.04.2018 said vehicle met with road accident with road accident and it caused damage to the vehicle. But no F.I.R. was lodged at concern police station. Said vehicle has been lying in the house of the complainant on 30.04.2018 One Kamala Auto private limited, Jalpaiguri inspected the vehicle for his complete repairing and servicing to make it fit for running condition.
After assessing it was estimated that Rs. 1, 24,650/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) would be borne for complete repairing and servicing damaged vehicle. The complainant has prayed for insurance claim amount of Rs. 1,24,650/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) along with compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) Besides that he has prayed for litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
Countering allegation the O.P. has filed evidence stated inter-alia that the complainant had purchased said vehicle for commercial purpose. The vehicle was being used, enjoyed and possessed by the complainant for their own commercial purpose.
Therefore, he has no locus-standi to file present case. It has not complained by the complainant that the vehicle was not being run for earning his livelihood. Insurance company is in dark about the alleged sale of Maruti Car by the insured to the complainant on 18.04.2018. On its scrutiny it appears from the internal system record that the claim was lodged on 10.03.2018. Though the complainant has purchased the same on 18.04.2018 no document with respect to sale of the said vehicle has been submitted to the insurance company.
As per Rule 17 of Indian Motor Traffic transfer of “own damage” section of 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 transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of no claim bonus or is entitled to lesser percentage of no claims being than the existing policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any and then shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer. Further 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 existing evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled in 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 can not be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new certificate is issued.
Transferee complainant did not file
- Request from the Transferee;
- Consent of the transferor;
- Fresh proposal Form from the transferee;
- Acceptable evidence of sale;
- Old certificate of Insurance;
- Surrender Fee of Rs. 50/- if old certificate.
Than proper declaration from the transferee is taken to that effect. There is no contractual liability between the complainant and the Insurance Company and indemnifying the alleged loss of a stranger/ third party is not permissible under the law of the land.
There is no contract of Insurance between the present parties and is the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case in light of the law of terms and conditions of Policy. The O.P. Insurer has no option to own claim of the claimant and thereby it can not be negligence and service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Claim of the claimant was found to be inability after going through information and the same was repudiated by the O.P. There is no negligence of the O.P. since the complainant has no contract of Insurance with the O.P. and as such there can not be negligence of service.
Having regard, to the evidence supported by executed document it reveals that Maruti Alto Registration No. W.B.- 74S-5985, is ensured by the said Policy. Damaged caused to the vehicle was on 10.03.2018. Insurance Policy was in the name of Dipsika Sen, but actual owner of the vehicle is Mr. Chhaphul Rahman as per fit verification and Registration Certificate.
There was Insurance Policy exist during accident, but the claimant did not change his name from original owner in the Insurance Company. In this particular claim the Insurance Company are no liable to pay damages caused due to road accident. They have not lodged diary at the concern Police Station against the offending vehicle. It has been mentioned that one Traveler Branded Car coming from opposite direction as collided with Alto Car of the complainant and as such serious damage was caused to the Alto Car.
It has been contented that after fatal accident of the car the complainant Chhaphul Rahman did not make any Written Complaint informing road accident caused serious damage to the vehicle by another vehicle coming from opposite direction to Insurance Company. The Insurance Company would then be liable to engage surveyor and to take necessary steps for repairing by Authorized Dealer in the instant case. The complainant in lieu of information to the insurer suo motu took the vehicle to Komala Auto Works for repairing and to fit new spare parts replacing damaged spare parts of the vehicle. As a result the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 54,150/-(Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Fifty Only) and Rs. 70,500/- (Seventy Thousand Five Hundred Only) totaling Rs. 1,24,650/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) to said Kamala Auto Works.
The complainant has claimed amount from the O.P. insurer, but on the other hand the insurer has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that Dipsika Sen did not make any prayer to the Insurance Company informing sale of second hand car to the complainant. Moreover, the formalities as state hereinabove was not observed by the complainant. No Written Complain was made at the concern Police Station, where the road accidental damage caused to the vehicle. The policy of Insurance remains valid from 28.10.2017 till 27.10.2018 Accident took place on 22.04.2018.
Therefore, the vehicle in question when met accident was within insurance period, but unfortunately the claimant for the reason best known to him did not complain to the concern Police Station and did not inform about damage of the vehicle to the concern Insurance Company. As a result of which the claim of Insurance Company is not sustainable in law in consideration of the fact that they did not get any opportunity to make cross verification to allege accidental damage of the vehicle.
The complainant would have informed in writing about the damage of vehicle caused by another vehicle on 22.04.2018 or soon thereafter to the Insurance Company for taking effective measure for replacement of the damage spare parts. Earlier owner Dipsika Sen has not made party to the case.
It is significant to note that the complainant has complained about accident of vehicle taken place on 22.04.2018 but internal system records maintain by the O.P. Insurance Company shows that claim was intimated by the complainant on 10.03.2018 to the O.P. Insurance Company. Therefore, it is contradictory statement made by and between the claimant and the Insurance Company. Such contradictory statement has not been denied by the complainant by producing any documents. Therefore, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is of unanimous view that the complainant case is not tenable lie. In view of the facts that the complainant did not change his name as insurer in place of Dipsika Sen. Moreover, the claimant did not rebut statement of the Insurance Company that claim was intimated by the complainant on 10.03.2018 to the O.P. insurer, if it is relied upon then date of accident of the vehicle not have occurred on 22.04.2018.
In the result the case is fails,
According it is
O R D E R E D :
That the complainant case and the same be dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.
