Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/860

Rohtash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                                            150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 860/14

1.   Sh. Rohtash Singh      S/o Tara Singh     R/o House No. 1038,      V.P.O Dichao Kalan,    New  Delhi-110043.

2.   Daljit Kataria     S/o Sh. Jasram Kataria    R/o House  No. 587,    Sector -5  Gurgaon,                                                                       Haryana-122001                ….. Complainants

VERSUS

Bajaj Alliainz Insurance  Co. Ltd.    Through Its  Branch  Manager/Authorized  Signatory        Block No. 4, 7^th  Floor ,      DLF Towers, 15, Shivaji Marg,    Rajouri Garden,        New Delhi-110015

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the Complainant No.2 was registered owner of vehicle  i.e. Car Skoda Laura bearing  No. HR 26AF 4218 which was  insured  with OP  for a premium  of Rs. 14,188/-  for the period  from 24.09.2013  to 23.09.2014 . It is further  stated that Complainant  No. 1 and 2  are good friend and that  Complainant  No.1 purchased the aforesaid  car from complainant No. 2  for a valuable consideration on 10.04.2014. The Complainant No.2 assured the complainant no. 1 to get registration  transferred in the name of complainant no.1 within a week. Complainant No.2 has also executed an affidavit in favour of complainant No. 1 regarding  sale of  the car and  as such  complainant   No. 1  was the sole owner of the car  w.e.f.  10.04.2014.  The complainant No.1 after purchase of the vehicle  drove the car at his  office in Gurgaon from  where it was stolen.  The matter was reported  to Haryana Police upon which case FIR  No. 227/2014 under section 379 IPC   was registered .  Since the vehicle was not traced out by the local police, therefore, police filed untraced report in the court which  was accepted by the concerned magistrate.  Complainant No.1  has also informed  OP about theft  of vehicle , however, OP  repudiated the claim of   complainant No. 1  vide letter dated 15.10.2014  on  the  ground that at the material  time of theft of car, ownership of the vehicle  and policy was  in the name of  one Sh. Daljit Kataria  and that complainant  No.1   had no locus-standi. since complainant No. 1  had purchased the vehicle   against  valuable consideration  from registered owner  complainant No.2 , therefore, the repudiation letter was unjustified. Hence the present complaint for  award of insurance  amount of vehicle and  compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-  with cost of the case to the tune of Rs. 55,000/- .

2.     The OP  filed  Written statement taking preliminary objections inter-alia  that  complainant no. 1 is neither  consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act nor did  he avail any services from OP,  also complainant No. 1 did not have any insurable interest in the subject matter at the  time of  loss of vehicle.  Since complainant No. 2  had already sold the vehicle in favour of complainant No.1 before theft, he had no pecuniary interest in the vehicle.  It is also stated that complainant No. 1 is in the habit of taking insurance claims in  respect of  stolen vehicles.

3.     Complainant No.1 and 2 has filed replication denying contents of written statement and re-affirming the contents of complaint.  He has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh.  Dushyant Kumar Meena, Sr. Executive filed  affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P. He relied upon  Exhibit- RW1/1 and Exhibit- RW 1/7. 

4.     We have very carefully considered the documents filed on record.

5.     The real controversy existing in the present case is as to whether complainant No.1, who claimed to be the owner of the vehicle in question after purchase from complainant No.2, had any insurable  interest at the time of incident of theft or not. The answer is in the negative. The complainant No.1 has filed on record only one affidavit alleged to have been sworn by complainant no. 2 about sale of the vehicle.  Admittedly the registration certificate of the vehicle and the insurance policy for the relevant period still existed in the name of complainant No.2, who categorically stated that  he had already sold the vehicle to complainant No.1.  Obviously the mere execution of affidavit by original owner of the vehicle  without sale agreement  and filling up of the relevant forms under Motor Vehicle Act for the purpose of transfer  of registration in the name of  buyer, the vehicle cannot be stated to have been transferred in the name of buyer .  Admittedly complainant  No.1 had no document in his name except  the affidavit  sworn by complainant No. 2.  Admittedly  no  claim was filed by the original  owner  before the OP.  

        The Hon’ble National  Commission in case title United India Insurance  Ltd  Vs V.G. Deena 2010 CTJ177(CP) NCDRC held that where owner neither  had registration nor insurance in his name, so no privity of  contract existing with Insurance Company.

        In another case Hon’ble National Commission  in case IV(2014)CPJ 569(NC) New India Insurance  Co.  Ltd. Vs Bimlesh has held as under:-

“ Accident  of vehicle-Non  registration –insurable interest claim repudiated-objection casts upon transferor and transferee to report  factum of transfer to authority arises only after transfer vehicle has already taken place-ownership of vehicle  is transferred on execution of sale letter and requirement of informating transfer to Registering authority is only a post transfer statutory  requirement-complainant became  owner of vehicle  and had insurable interest  at the time it got damaged-repudiation non justified. 

 

Hon’ble National Commission yet  in another case IV(2014) CPJ 275(NC)  N.Gopal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. which held as under:-

Sec 2(1)(G) – Motor Vehicle  Act- Section 50,157- Accident of vehicle – Insurable Interest- Surveyor appointed-claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service- Distt. Forum  partly allowed complaint –State Commission  allowed appeal- at the time of accident  neither was the complainant registered owner of vehicle  nor  has be policy been transferred to  his name as far provisions of Motor Vehicle Act-It has no insurable interest in said vehicle and also  there is no privity of contract between  petitioner and respondent- Repudiation justified.

 

 

The aforesaid authorities make it abundantly  clear that there will  no privity of contract if   the requisite  document such as registration certificate or insurance policy  did not exist  in the name of proposed buyer.

        Keeping in view  the  discussion stated above we are of the considered view  both the complainants  have ceased to have any insurable interest in the vehicle, therefore, complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this____18__ day of __January _____ 2019.

 

                                                                                                                                   ( K.S. MOHI )                                              (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              PRESIDENT                                                  

MEMBER