STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Balihar Singh s/o Late Sh.Daya Singh, Special Attorney of Sh.Harish Soni r/o Village Raipur Khurd, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                                                ---Appellant

Versus

1.     Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.2463-2464, 2^nd  Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.      

2.     Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001

                                                                ---Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents.

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal filed by the complainant (now appellant) against the order, dated 06.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 517 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.                    The facts, in brief are that Sh.Harish Soni sold the car bearing registration No.HR-03-H-4100 to the complainant i.e. Sh.Balihar Singh.  It was stated that the NOC for transfer of the said vehicle was got issued from the competent authority but before formal transfer of the vehicle, the same was stolen and, as such, FIR No.46 dated 24.11.09 (Annexure A-1) was recorded in Police Station  Phase-1, Mohali.  It was further stated that the said vehicle was insured with the OPs, for the period from 30.12.08 to 29.12.09. It was further stated that the complainant submitted the insurance claim on 30.11.09, alongwith the requisite documents to the OPs. The complainant also submitted the untraced report of the vehicle dated 06.05.2010.  It was further stated that the OPs did not settle his legitimate claim despite repeated requests of the complainant and legal notice  dated 15.07.2010  served upon them. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In the written reply, it was admitted by the OPs that the vehicle was insured for Rs.5.49 lacs, in the name of Harish Soni and Co. subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, for the period from 30.12.08 to 29.12.09. It was stated that, during investigation, it came to light that the registered owner of the vehicle, on the date of accident was Harish Soni and Co.,   and not the complainant. It was further stated that the insurance policy was also in the name of Harish Soni and Co.  and, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs.  It was further stated that the in view of provisions of GR No.17 of India Motor Tariff, the complaint was not maintainable.   It was further stated that on intimation of the claim, Sh.S.S.Bedi, Surveyor and Investigator was appointed to investigate the claim. The motor claim provided to the OP, also showed that the insured was Harish Soni and Co. whereas the claim was signed by the complainant. It was further stated that the Sh.S.S.Bedi, Surveyor and Investigator gave report dated 06.12.09 according to which Harish Soni and Co. had sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh on 29.09.09. It was further stated that the intimation with regard to the sale of the vehicle was never given to the OPs, by Harish Soni and Co. or by Sh.Balihar Singh. It was further stated that the contract of insurance with Harish Soni and Co. came to an end, as it sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh. It was further stated that Sh.Balihar Singh did not get the insurance policy transferred, in his name, nor got a new policy issued from the OPs and, as such, he had no insurable interest.  It was further stated that, the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, written arguments of the respondents and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that  Sh.Harish Soni  sold the car bearing registration No.HR-03-H-4100  to the appellant/complainant on 29.09.2009.  It was further submitted that NOC was received by the complainant on 11.11.2009, though applied for on 29.09.2009 but before the formal transfer of the vehicle, the same was stolen and FIR dated 24.11.2009 was got registered. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment titled as Vakeel Singh Vs. United India insurance Co. Ltd. passed by the Punjab State Commission in F.A. No.327 of 2006 decided on 01.03.2008. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant submitted the insurance claim, alongwith all the requisite documents, with the respondents/OPs on 30.11.09 but they did not settle the claim and, consequently, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was wrongly dismissed. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                                          The Counsel for the respondents/OPs submitted that the registered owner of the vehicle, on the date of accident, was Harish Soni and Co. and not the appellant/complainant i.e. Sh.Balihar Singh. It was further submitted that the insurance policy was also in the name of Harish Soni and Co. and, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs.   He further submitted that as per report of the Investigator dated 06.12.2009 (Annexure R-3), Harish Soni and Co. had sold the vehicle to the appellant/complainant on 29.09.09. He further submitted that the intimation with regard to the sale of the vehicle was never given to respondents/OPs by Harish Soni and Co. or by the appellant/complainant. He further submitted that the contract of insurance with Harish Soni and Co. came to an end, as it sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh and even Sh.Balihar Singh did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name nor got a new policy issued from the respondents/OPs and, as such, he had no insurable interest.   He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.

10.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, on 29.09.2009 from Harish Soni and Co., which was duly insured for Rs.5.49 lacs, with the respondents/OPs, for the period from 30.12.2008 to 29.12.2009 (Annexure  A-2), regarding which NOC (Annexure A-6) was got issued from the competent authority, but before the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, the same was stolen regarding which FIR (Annexure A-1) was duly lodged on 24.11.2009 with Police Station Mohali. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that, at the time of theft of the vehicle, neither the same was registered, in the name of the appellant/complainant, nor he applied and deposited the requisite fee for transfer of the Insurance Policy with the OPs as required under the provisions of GR No.17 of the India Motor Tariff nor the appellant/complainant informed the respondents/OPs regarding the purchase of the vehicle, whereas, though  he was duty bound to inform them regarding the same. Hence, in this situation, we are of the considered view, that the appellant/complainant had no privity of contract with the respondents/OPs, as he had no insurable interest, in the vehicle, in question on the date of theft, whereas, as per the provisions of GR No.17 of the India Motor Tariff, the transferee was required to get insurance policy transferred, in his favour. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint by relying upon the judgments titled as G.Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999(2) PLR-274, Om Parkash Sharma Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. and others, IV(2008) CPJ-65 (NC), Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. and Others, 1(2009) CPJ-158 (NC) and National Insurance Co. Vs. Arjun Singh, 2010 (2) CLT-240.  In the recent case-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Kumar, IV(2011) CPJ-579 (NC)  the vehicle was purchased by the complainant /respondent on 27.12.2003. He was issued the NOC by the opposite party No.3 therein. He applied for the registration of the vehicle, in  his name, to the Regional Transport Authority, Chandigarh, which asked him to send a letter to the National Crime Records Bureau, Delhi and D.T.O., Jalandhar for confirming the genuineness of the NOC. Since the insurance of the car was expiring on 09.06.2004 and the same (car) had not been transferred, in the name of the complainant /respondent (purchaser), he got the same renewed in the name of the previous registered owner i.e. opposite party No.3. However on the night intervening 20/21.08.2004, the car was stolen and the FIR was lodged in the police. The car was recovered on 17.09.04 in a bad condition. The complainant/respondent lodged claim, with the Insurance Company, which was repudiated, on the ground, that he (complainant) had no insurable interest. Ultimately, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, was filed by the complainant, against the Insurance Company for indemnification. The District Forum, Chandigarh, allowed the complaint. This Commission dismissed the appeal. The Insurance Company, feeling aggrieved, filed  a revision petition. The National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Dalip Kumar’s case (supra) accepted the revision petition, holding that the complainant/respondent had no insurable interest, in the vehicle, on the date of theft thereof, as neither the registration certificate of the vehicle nor the insurance policy, had been transferred, in his name, by that date. Reliance was placed by the National Commission on  Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India  Assurance Co. Ltd. I(1996) CPJ-1(SC) and Rikhi Ram and Another Vs. Sukhrania and Others, II(2003) SLT-62 (SC), as also G.R.17, which came into operation w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The principle of law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Dalip Kumar’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as on the date of the theft of vehicle, neither the RC of the same (vehicle) nor the insurance policy, had been transferred, in the name of the complainant/respondent, and, as such, he had no insurable interest. The principle of  law laid down in Vakeel Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, is not applicable, to the facts of the instant case, being contrary to the principle of law, laid down in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Dalip Kumar’s case (supra) decided by the National Commission. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit is rejected. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid is liable to be upheld. 

11.          No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

12.          The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-

Pronounced.                                          [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

02.01.2012                                                                 PRESIDENT       

Sd/-

                                                                                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                    MEMBER

cmg