Haryana

StateCommission

A/159/2015

HARKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AXA GEN. INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JOHAN KUMAR

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.159 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 18.02.2015

Date of Decision: 12.08.2015

 

Harkesh S/o Sh.Keshav Ram, R/o village and P.O. Mohna, Tehsil Mohna, District Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Big Jo’s towner, 2^nd Floor, Netaji Subhas Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

    

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was registered owner of car bearing registration No. HR 29/AA/3032 insured with the opposite party (O.P.) for value of Rs.3,82,095/-.  The insurance policy was valid from 23.06.2011 to 22.06.2012.  On 06.02.2012 car in question met with an accident and was totally damaged.  O.P. was informed about the incident immediately.  Surveyor appointed by O.P. came to spot and after inspection submitted his report.  He submitted all the requisite documents alongwith his claim, but, was repudiated vide letter dated 31.07.2012 on the ground that he had already sold vehicle to Indraj.  Actually Indraj was driving vehicle at the time of accident and was not in possession of the same as owner.  Car was lying M/s Parashar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Palwal and he was paying Rs.250/- per day as parking charges.  O.P. was requested to pay Insured Declared Value (IDV) besides compensation for mental harassment litigation expenses etc., but, to no avail.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was no insurable interest between insurance company and complainant. Vehicle in question was already sold to Indraj on 14.10.2011 against payment of Rs.3,80,000/- before date of accident.  He handed over possession of the vehicle to Indraj. RC and insurance were not got transferred and there was clear violation of the Indian Motor Tariff ( In short “IMT”) i.e. condition No.8 and G.R. 17 transfers.  Complainant was no more consumer and there was no deficiency in service.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad dismissed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 19.01.2014 on the ground that the vehicle was already sold to Indraj and was not got transferred in his name within the prescribed period.

4.      Feeling Aggrieved, therefrom, the complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the insurance company-O.P. vehemently argued that complainant had already sold vehicle to Indraj on 14.10.2011 for consideration of Rs.3,80,000/-.  This fact was admitted by complainant as well as Indraj in their affidavits Ex.G and Ex.H respectively during investigation. When there is violation of terms and conditions of IMT and Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, complainant is not entitled for compensation.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.1816 of 2014 titled Didar Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 20.05.2014 and in revision petition No.4444 of 2012 titled Sarfarjudeen Vs. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 20.01.2015.

7.      This argument is of no avail. The Respondent-O.P. cannot derive any benefit from the above-said case laws because they are altogether different from the present case.  In these cases vehicle was already sold  and this fact was proved, but, was not got transferred in the name of vendee-whereas it is not so in this case.

8.      More so, the vehicle is finally transferred to other person after completing the formalities provided under Section 50 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short “M.V.Act”). After the sale of a vehicle transferor is to report about the same within 14 days.  Thereafter name of transferee will come in the registration certificate.  O.P. has not produced any evidence on the file showing that complainant submitted any application before concerned registration authority about transfer of vehicle.  When there is no such document it cannot be presumed that complainant ceased to be owner of this vehicle. Complainant was not confronted with his statement made before the surveyor.  More so, those statements were not made on oath and have no value in the eyes of law.  As per these statements, it cannot be opined that Indraj was having any right over the vehicle.  It was never suggested to them that the vehicle was already sold to Indraj.  Insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant. It shows that he was registered owner of the vehicle in question.  The agreement was executed in between complainant and the insurance company.  Appellant-O.P. cannot get out of the liability after issuing insurance policy.  No other point was urged before us.

9.      In view of above discussion impugned order dated 19.01.2014 is set aside and appeal as well as complaint are allowed with direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,01,595/-, as mentioned in surveyor report (Annexure-F), alongwith interest @9%  from the date of repudiation of the claim to the complainant.  Rs.15,000/- be also paid to complainant for harassment and mental agony. In addition complainant is entitled for Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

August 12th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench