Haryana

Panchkula

cc/206/2014

SURINDER SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PATHAK.

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                     

Consumer Complaint No	:	206 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	28.10.2014
Date of Decision	:	24.03.2015

                                                                                                                 

1.         Surinder Sharma S/o Sh.Darshan Lal, R/o Village & P.O. Kesri, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala (Haryana).

2.         Madhu Garg W/o Brij Bhushan Garg, R/o H.No.HIG 67-A, Housing Board Colony, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                                             ….Complainants

Versus

 

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

                                                                                           ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                  Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Mukesh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainants. 

Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainants have filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Op with the averments that the complainant No.1 sold a Yamaha Motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-54-9206, Engine No.ZIC 1081368, Chassis No. ME 121C011A2081325, colour Maroon to complainant No.2 by way of affidavit dated 11.05.2012 which was insured with the Op i.e. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. for Rs.46,750/- vide Cover Note No.MC1002817363 on 13.05.2012 valid for the period from 14.05.2012 to 13.05.2013. The aforesaid vehicle was registered at Registering and Licensing Authority, Barara and the complainant No.2 was also resident of Kalka. The complainant No.1, in order to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant No.2, applied for NOC with RLA (Registering and Licensing Authority), Barara, Distt. Ambala and thereafter, it was to be applied with the RLA, Kalka for transfer of vehicle in the name of complainant No.2. Before completing the formalities for transfer, the vehicle was stolen in the night on 13/14.12.2012 from the residence of complainant No.2. The husband of the complainant No.2 lodged the FIR No.148 (Annexure C-3) dated 14.12.2012 with the Police Station Kalka. Thereafter, as guided by the officials of the Op, the complainant No.2 filed claim with the Op vide claim No.OC-13-1201-1802-00000388 dated 01.02.2013. The Op sent a letter dated 20.03.2013 (Annexure C-5) to complainant No.1 which was replied by the complainant No.1 (Annexure C-6) but even considering the reply, the claim was rejected vide letter dated 29.03.2013 (Annexure C-7). On 12.04.2013, the complainant No.1 sent a letter to the Op for clarifying the insurable interest exists with the previous owner till the policy is transferred to subsequent owner. The complainant No.1 submitted a fresh claim on 04.08.2014 (Annexure C-8) which was again rejected by the Op vide letter dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure C-9) on the ground that the complainant No.1 had no insurable interest at the time of theft. The documents for issuance of NOC/transfer were submitted by complainant No.1 with the RLA, Barara within time and the process of transfer of vehicle was still pending. As per rules, the complainant No.2 intimated the Op within 14 days from the day when the vehicle was transferred in her name. The complainants sent legal notice to the Op but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Op amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Op filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that at the time of loss i.e. 14.12.2012, the complainants have no insurable interest. It is submitted that on the receipt of the theft claim under the policy in respect of vehicle No.HR54-9206, the documents submitted by the complainant No.2 were scrutinized and observed that at the material time of loss, the vehicle was under the possession of complainant No.2 and the insurance policy was in the name of complainant No.1 and in this regard, a letter dated 11.03.2013 was written to complainant No.2 by giving an opportunity to reply within 7 days from the receipt of the letter as to why the claim be not repudiated which was followed by another letter dated 20.03.2013. It is submitted that when no response was received from the complainant No.2, inspite of receipts of letters dated 11.03.2013 & 20.03.2013, the Op had written another letter dated 29.03.2013 to the complainant No.2 through registered A.D. post giving reference of earlier letters, informing that in the absence of any response from the complainants, the OP had repudiated the claim. It is submitted that the complainant No.1 had sold the vehicle to the complainant No.2 on 25.04.2012 and the complainant No.1 vide his affidavit delivered the physical possession of the vehicle on 25.04.2012 by receiving the sale consideration. It is submitted that the complainant No.2 had taken the possession of the vehicle on 25.04.2012 and paid the sale consideration. It is submitted that a letter dated 08.08.2014 was written to the complainant No.1 giving reference of letters dated 11.03.2013, 20.03.2013 & 29.03.2013 and after scrutinizing the documents, it was conveyed to the complainant No.1 that at the material time of loss of the vehicle, the registration certificate & the insurance policy was in the name of the complainant No.1 whereas he has sold the vehicle to the complainant No.2 on 25.04.2012, therefore, in the absence of any insurable interest, it was conveyed that Op is not able to pay the claim under the terms of the policy and the claim of the complainants was repudiated vide letter dated 08.08.2014. It is submitted that upon receipt of intimation regarding the theft claim, the investigation was conducted through Sh.Abhishek Moudgil, Advocate who submitted his report dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure R-9). It is submitted that FIR was lodged and untraced report was also submitted by the police. It is submitted that the motor insurance claim was submitted by the husband of the complainant No.2.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Anneuxre C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-10 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Op.
5. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusing the documents on record, the question which needs determined is whether the repudiation done by the Ops-Insurance Company of legal and justified. The answer to this is in the affirmative.
6. According to complaint, the complainant No.1-original owner of motorcycle sold to the complainant No.2 and possession was handed over on 25.04.2012 by way of affidavits dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure R-5 & R-6). Thereafter, the vehicle was insured on 13.05.2012 valid for the period from 14.05.2012 to 13.05.2013 (Annexure C-1). Admittedly, the vehicle was insured in the name of the complainant No.1 after sale of the same to the complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 applied for NOC with RLA (Registering and Licensing Authority), Barara, District Ambala. The NOC was issued by RLA, Barara to RTO, Kalka vide NCRB No.22253 dated 25.07.2012 issued on 30.10.2012 (Annexure C-2). The complainant No.1 was required to submit the papers for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant No.2 immediately. Specific dates of application for transfer in the name of the complainant No.2 as also the receipts of the request for transfer by the RTO had not been provided by the complainant and as such it is not possible to say as to whether the complainants had complied with the requirements of law in regard to the transfer of the vehicle within the period allowed. The complainants did not comply with the provisions of GR-17 of Motor Tariff Rules of Tariff Advisor Committee and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and for that reasons the complainants cannot claim any compensation from the insurance company. Reference is made to the case law Sarfarjudeen versus Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in RP No.4444 of 2012 decided on 20.01.2015 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and held as under:-
   1. •  

 

•  

 

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………”

 

Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party further contends that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the transfer of Certificate of Insurance. The provision contained therein directs the purchaser of the vehicle to get the Insurance Certificate transferred in his name by making an application to the Insurance Company. But in the instant case the complainant and respondent no.2 Ashok Kumar did not comply with the above said provisions of GR-17 of Motor Tariff Rules of Tariff Advisory Committee and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and for that reason, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the Insurance Company in view of settled law laid down in COMPLETE INSURLATIONS (P) LTD. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1(1996) CPJ 1 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

 

“……..In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle……”

 

Further reference is made to case law cited as Dharmendra Nath Thakur versus United Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (1) CPC 574(N.C.) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

           

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(b)-Non transfer of policy-Registration of vehicle was changed in the name of complainant no.1 but insurance policy remained in the name of previous owner. It is settled law as cited in Complete Insulations case 1996(1) SCC 221 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that insured will not be entitled to compensation from insurer for damages to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract covering risk for damage to the vehicle- Orders of Fora below dismissing the claim of petitioner warrants no interference-Relief declined.”

 

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to COMPELETE INSULATIONS (P) LTD.’S case (Supra) and Dharmendra Nath Thakur’s case (Supra).

 

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since the complainant has failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name, therefore, he has no insurable interest and thus, is not entitled for any compensation. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the legal position involved in this case and as such the impugned order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

 

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.”

 

5.  

7. In a similar case our own Hon’ble State Commission in appeal no.189/2013 titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Gawar Construction Company, Hisar has held as under:-
   •  

The abovesaid order of the Hon’ble State Commission has been upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.3160 of 2013 titled as Gawar Construction Company, Hisar versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 30.01.2015.

8. It being evident from the own pleadings of the Complainant No.1 that the transfer of the vehicle in favour of Complainant No.2 had not been effectuated in the record of the competent authority, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle, particularly when the insurance policy obtained on 13.05.2012 (after the averred sale of the vehicle by Complainant No.1 to Complainant No.2 on 25.04.2012) too was in the name of Complainant No.1 only. On the basis of that record-based averment, we validate the repudiation of the claim by the OP. On point of fact, the issue for adjudication is fully dealt with in the judicial pronouncements extracted in an earlier part of this order and our attention during the course of hearing was not invited to any law to the contrary.
9. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Op-company has rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency in service on its part. The complaint being meritless is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced

24.03.2014      ANIL SHARMA        ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER                      MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                     

                                                       

                                                            DHARAM PAL                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT