Coram: Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

               Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

               Manju Bala Sharma, Member

ORDER                     Date:     November 2016

Manju Bala Sharma, Member

Instant complaint has been filed by complainant on 22-09-2011 stating therein that the complainant purchased from OP 3, dealing in sale of Maruti True Value, a used car on 31/03/2007 for Rs. 3,48,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Forty Eight Thousand only) and paid   Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Sixty Thousand only) as cost of car, insurance and other expenses of registration etc. vide cheque No. 062307, dated 09/04/2007. On purchase OP 3ensured the complainant that the car will be registered in his name and insurance policy will also be transferred in his name. 

          OP 3 informed OP 1 and 2 about the sale of the car and asked them to transfer the Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant and paid balance premium required to be paid for the transfer of the Insurance Policy.  OP 1 and 2 got the car inspected by OP 4 on 28//11/2007 vide private vehicle pre Insurance Report No. 15843 in which the name of the owner/customer was stated as Ahluwalia.  Complainant continued to pay the Insurance Premium w.e.f. 28/11/2007 to OP 1 and 2 but OP 1 and 2 instead of issuing Insurance Policy of the above said vehicle in the name of the complainant continued to issue the policy in the name of the former name i.e. in the name of  Inder Jeet Singh Punhani OP No. 5.  OP No. 2 had paid a claim of Rs. 7048/- in favour of the complainant against this policy.  It is further stated that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 28-01-2010.   DD entry No. 5 A dated 28-01-2010 at Police Station Sunlight Colony Delhi, was registered and Complainant lodged a claim with OPs 1 and 2 for reimbursement of the loss after completing all the requirements.  The vehicle was got inspected by the valuer of OP 1 and 2 who declared it a case of total loss as vehicle was totally burnt.  The claim was rejected by OP 1 and 2 vide letter dated 26/03/2010 stating that the complainant does not have any privity of the contract with the insurer at the material time of the accident.  It is further stated that OP No. 5 former owner of the vehicle also requested to OP No. 2 to pay claim to the complainant and in case they are facing any difficulty in making payment of the claim to the complainant they should pay the same to OP 5 and OP 5 will reimburse the same to the complainant as he has already sold the vehicle to OP 3 who had also instructed OP 1 and 2 to transfer the Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant.   Complainant prayed that OPs be directed to pay accidental claim of Rs. 2,60,000/- (Two Lacs Sixty Thousand only)  along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of intimation to OPs 1 and 2 compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac only) for mental agony and     Rs. 21,000/- (Twenty One Thousand only) as cost of litigation.       

          As nobody has entered appearance on behalf of OPs No. 4 and 5 they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28/02/2012.  OP 1 filed its reply and took preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer as he has not availed the service of OP 1 for consideration prior to the date of accident.   There is no privity of the contract between the parties and in the case of theft / total loss of the vehicle on settlement of a claim the claimant has to execute a letter of subrogation in favour of the insurer.  In this case when the insurance does not stand in the name of the complainant the complainant will have no locus standi to execute a letter of   subrogation.    It is further stated that OP is not aware of the fact that the complainant had paid the premium all of these years and the law does not prohibit payment of premium by one on behalf of some another person.   Rest of the allegations have been denied by the OP.

OP 3 in its written statement took preliminary objections that the complainant has not taken any services with regard to the Insurance of the vehicle in question and that OP 3 has not indulged in any act or omission which would constitute deficiency in service.  On merits OP 3 has denied all the allegations contained in the complaint except that the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle in question after paying entire cost and statutory levies/expenditure.  OP 3 has specifically denied that he ever promised to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant in his personal capacity but ensured that the vehicle shall be transferred in the name of the Company against which the invoice was raised subject to providing the necessary documents and fulfill the statutory compliance only.  It is further stated that the vehicle in question has not been purchased by the complainant but it was purchased by a duly incorporated company through its authorized representative i.e. the complainant and the registration of the vehicle was to be transferred in the name of purchasing company.  As the Complainant never approached the answering OP for transfer of registration certificate and necessary changes in the name of ownership of the vehicle it was presumed that the vehicle has been got transferred in the name of the Complainant Company. 

In replication the complainant has denied all the allegations and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint. 

          Complainant has filed his own affidavit in support of its complaint and relied upon the documents i.e. Bank Certificate of encashment of Cheque for Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Sixty Thousand only) as Annex ‘B’, pre-insurance inspection report dated 28/11/2007 as Annex ‘C’, Bank Certificate regarding issue of cheque in favour of OP 1 as Annex ‘D’ copy of the Insurance Policy as Annex ‘E’, copy of the envelop confirming payment of Rs. 7048/- to the complainant as Annex ‘F’, copy of DD entry as Annex ‘G’ and copy of the letter of OP rejecting the claim as Annex ‘A’.

          OP 1 filed affidavit of Shri Akhilesh Chandra Assistant Manger of OP 1 in support of the contents of the reply and filed terms and conditions of the policy as Annex ‘A’, copy of  the policy as Annex ‘B’ and letter issued by OP 5 former owner of the vehicle to OP 1 as Exhibit R-3 in support of his claim OP 3 has filed the affidavit of Shri Rakesh Dixit GM of OP 3 in support of his reply.              

We have heard learned counsel for the parties gone through the relevant record and written arguments filed by the parties. 

The points to be considered  in the present case are as under :

(a)     Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b)     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

( c)     Relief?

          The OP1 denied that complainant has ever availed the services of the    OP 1 for consideration prior to the date of accident and that there was any privity of contract between parties.  We have carefully gone through the documents filed and relied upon by the complainant.   Such as Bank certificate of encashment of cheque for as Annex B and claim paid to the complainant by the OP as Annex ‘F’ certificate issued by the Indian Bank stating that three cheques issued on 22/11/07, 25/11/08 and 15/11/09 for a sum of Rs. 9931, Rs. 5800/- Rs. 8090 were paid on 04/12/2007, 27/11/2008 and 19/11/2009  to the OP 1 from the saving account of the complainant as annexure D.  Bare perusal of certificate issued by the bank does not find mention that the payment was made to OP1 against the payment of the Policy in question.  Annex ‘F’ on which the counsel for the complainant has relied upon stating that OP 1 has paid claim of Rs. 7048/- dated 22/10/09 in favour of the complainant contains client reference no. 3362/00156404/000/01, another policy held by the complainant himself whereas the policy issued in the case in hand in favour of  Dr. Inderjeet Puhani, the owner of Vehicle contains policy no. 3362/00094961/000/02.  Therefore, perusal of Annexure ‘F’ and the policy filed by the complainant in this matter shows that the claim of Rs. 7048/- paid to the complainant relates to different policy.  So far as the argument that premium of insurance was being paid by complainant counsel for OP has relied the decision of  Hon. Supreme Court in Complete  Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. 1 (1196) CPJ 1 SC in which it has been held that without the Insurance Policy being transferred in the name of the appellant the appellant was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer we have gone through  the judgement of the Hon. SC (Supra) and we are of the opinion that the complainant has not got the policy transferred in his name after the purchase of the vehicle in question and therefore is not entitled to be indemnified for the loss suffered by him.             

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to Record Room.   

Announced on this          /      /       /

          MEMBER                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT