oBEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 517 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 24.08.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 06.05.2011 |
Balihar Singh s/o Late Sh.Daya Singh, Special Attorney of Sh.Harish Soni r/o Village Raipur Khurd, Tehsil and District Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.2463-2464, 2nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001 ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Sher Singh Rathore, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OPs PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Harish Soni through his special attorney Sh.Balihar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that Sh.Harish Soni sold the car bearing registration No.HR-03-H-4100 to Sh.Balihar Singh. The NOC for transfer of the said vehicle was got issued from the competent authority but before formal transfer of the vehicle, the vehicle was stolen and as such the FIR No.46 dated 24.11.09 (Annexure A-1) was recorded in the Police Station Phase-1, Mohali. It is the case of the complainant that the said vehicle was insured with OPs for the period from 30.12.08 to 29.12.09. The complainant submitted the insurance claim on 30.11.09 along with requisite documents. The complainant also produced the untraced report of the vehicle dated 06.05.2010. The complainant alleged that OPs did not settle the legitimate claim despite his repeated requests and legal notice dated 15.07.2010, hence, this complaint. 2. OPs filed their written statement and took preliminary objections vis-vis locus standi, complainant is not a consumer, jurisdiction of the forum, concealment of material facts and denied the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it is replied that during investigation, it came to light that the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident was Harish Soni and Co. The insurance policy was also in the name of Harish Soni and Co. There is no privity of contract. It has been pleaded that in view of provisions of GR No.17 of India Motor Tariff, the complaint is not maintainable. However, it is admitted 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. As per OPs on intimation Sh.S.S.Bedi, Surveyor and Investigator was appointed to investigate the claim. The motor claim provided to the OP also shows that the insured is Harish Soni and Co. whereas the claim was signed by the complainant. It is further replied that Sh.S.S.Bedi, Surveyor and Investigator gave report dated 06.12.09 qua which it was pointed out that Harish Soni and Co. had sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh on 29.09.09. That intimation with regard to the sale of the vehicle was never given to OPs by Harish Soni and Co. or by Sh.Balihar Singh. According to OPs, the contract of insurance with Harish Soni and Co. came to end, as the company has sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh. Therefore, Harish Soni and Co. has no insurable interest in the insurance policy in question. Sh.Balihar Singh did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name nor got a new policy form the OPs. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. It is an admitted fact that on the date of theft, the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company-OP for the period from 30.12.2008 to 29.1.2009 vide policy (Annexure R-1/A-2). 6. The claim in question has not been settled by the OPs on the ground that while processing the claim, it was observed that on the date of accident, Harish Soni and Co. had no insurable interest in vehicle no. HR-03-H-4100 as the Company had already sold the vehicle to Sh.Balihar Singh. That Sh.Balihar Singh had not got the insurance policy transferred in his name as per the provisions of GR No.17of the India Motor Tariff. 7. Now the only point which calls for determination from this Court is whether the complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of theft? The answer to this is in the negative. 8. Annexure A-5 is the copy of the RC of vehicle no. HR-03-H-4100 and its perusal makes it clear that Harish Soni and Co. is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The vehicle in question has been sold to Sh.Balihar Singh as is evident from the endorsement on the Form No.28 i.e. No Objection Certificate (Annexure A-6). As averred in para No.1 of the compliant, Harish Soni and Co. had sold the vehicle in question to Sh.Balihar Singh. 9. In the present case, the theft of the vehicle took place on 24.11.2009 when GR-17 and not GR-10 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Rules was applicable in view of which the transferee has to apply to the insurance company for transfer of the insurance policy in his favour and also to pay Rs.50/- as fee for this purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G.Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999(2) PLR, 274, has held that under the old Motor Vehicle Act, there is no automatic transfer of the insurance policy qua other claims than third party claims. The entire case law was discussed by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case. Following the said principle of law, the Hon'ble National Commission in case of Om Parkash Sharma vs. National Insurance Company and others , 1V( 2008) CPJ , 65 ( National Commission) held that section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act applies to third party risks and not to own damage claims. It was also held that if the insurance policy was not got transferred by the transferee in his favour, he would have no locus standi to file the complaint. The matter again came up before the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Madan Singh vs. United India Insurance Company and others , 1 (2009) CPJ, 158 (National Commission). In that case, the case law on the said subject was discussed and the same proposition was reiterated by the Hon'ble National Commission that in such cases, the transfer of the insurance policy is necessary to claim benefit for own damage claims. Similar was the view taken by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission in case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Arjun Singh ,2010 (2) CLT,240. 10. Now, it is proved on record that the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of purchaser namely Balihar Singh. Thus, it is held that Sh.Balihar Singh has no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of accident. It is made clear that the present case is squarely covered by GR-17 , referred to above and the law relating to it has been discussed in para supra(s). 11. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. 12. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 06.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
