STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through Vineet Solanki, Assistant Manger Legal, Power of Attorney holder of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Plot No.2, DLF Building, Tower-F, I.T.Park, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1.    Dharmender Balhara s/o Sh.Ved Bir Singh, R/o House No.1251, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh

Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.    Gurjeet Singh, House No.32809 (in fact 3280), Sector 46, Chandigarh. {Deleted vide order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the District Forum}

              ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (RETD.)           PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                   MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed OP No.1 as under:-

“13]        As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.4.00 lac to the complainant, being the insured value of the vehicle after deducting the depreciation value, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 10.3.2011 till its actual payment. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 

14]         This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded of Rs.4.00 lacs along with interest @ 15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. from date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 10.3.2011 till its realization besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation costs”.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased Mahindra Logan vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-04-B-5675 from OP-2, which was duly insured for the insured declared value of Rs.4 lacs, with Opposite Party No.1, from 31.10.2010 to 30.10.2011 vide Annexure C-1.  The said vehicle was duly transferred, in the name of the complainant on 10.12.2010, vide Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 14.12.2010, sent an intimation to Opposite Party No.1 for transfer of the policy, in his name, consequent upon the transfer of vehicle. The said intimation was sent through courier (Annexure C-4) as well as through UPC (Annexure C-6).  It was stated that the said vehicle met with an accident with a truck near Military Cantt. Hisar on night intervening 28/29.01.2011.  Opposite Party No.1, on receipt of the intimation, appointed a Surveyor Sh.Sehgal.  Thereafter, on the suggestion of the Surveyor, the vehicle was taken to Supreme Motors Limited, Hisar, which prepared an estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.7,59,968.78 (Annexure C-7). Thereafter, the claim was lodged with Opposite Party No.1, which according to the complainant, was illegally repudiated, vide letter dated 10.3.2011,  Annexure C-8, on the ground that he(complainant) failed to intimate Opposite Party No.1 with regard to the transfer of Insurance Policy within 14 days of the transfer of vehicle in his name.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of Opposite Party No.1, in repudiating the claim of the complainant, on the ground, referred to above, though intimation within 14 days from the date of transfer of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant had been given to it, was completely illegal and invalid.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of Opposite Party No.1, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. 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.               The name of Opposite Party NO.2 (i.e. the original owner of the vehicle) was deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties, on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, on 03.04.2012 in the District Forum.

4.               Opposite Party No.1 put appearance through its Counsel on 14.03.2012. The first date for filing reply and evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 was given on 14.03.2012 for 03.04.2012. On 03.04.2012, Opposite Party No.1 did not file reply and evidence, by way of affidavit(s). On the other hand, it sought a date, as a result whereof, the case was adjourned to 18.04.2012 for reply and evidence of Opposite Party No.1, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/-. On 18.04.2012, again reply and evidence were not filed by Opposite Party No.1. A date was sought, by the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, which was granted and the complaint was adjourned to 27.04.2012 for filing reply and evidence, by way of affidavit(s) subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- On 27.04.2012, again neither reply nor evidence, by way of affidavit(s) was filed by Opposite Party No.1 and on the request of the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, the case was adjourned to 10.05.2012 for the aforesaid purpose, subject to payment of costs of Rs.800/-. On 10.05.2012, neither the costs of.1600/- were paid nor reply and evidence, by way of affidavit (s) was filed by Opposite Party No.1, as a result whereof, its defence was struck off, by the District Forum.

5.               The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle, in question, was got insured by the original owner with Opposite Party No.1. He also submitted that the vehicle, in question, was transferred, during the currency of the Insurance Policy, in favour of the complainant and before the accident but he (complainant) did not inform Opposite Party No.1 with regard to the transfer of vehicle in his name within 14 days. He further submitted that he also did not submit the requisite documents, as required by GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002, applicable after 30.06.2002 and, as such, the Insurance Policy could not be transferred in his name. He further submitted that, on the date of accident, the complainant had no insurable interest, in the vehicle, as a result whereof, his claim was rightly repudiated, vide repudiation letter dated 10.03.2011. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, 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 vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04-B-5675, was the ownership of Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Gurjeet Singh (name already deleted). This vehicle was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle, in question, was transferred, in the name of the complainant on 10.12.2010 vide Annexure C-2. There is, no doubt, about the factum that the vehicle, in question, had already been got insured, by Opposite Party No.2-Sh.Gurjeet Singh (name already deleted) for the period from 31.10.2010 to 30.10.2011.

11.                   The only question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, due intimation as required by GR-17  of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002, regarding the transfer of vehicle in his name by the complainant, was given to Opposite Party No.1, or not. Annexure C-5 is a copy of the letter dated 14.12.2010, which was sent by the complainant, to the Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co., SCO No.145-46, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, to the effect, that he had purchased the vehicle, in question, from Sh.Gurjeet Singh, which was insured with it (Opposite Party No.1). It was further intimated vide this letter that the registration of the aforesaid vehicle had been transferred, in his name, on 10.12.2010. Accordingly, a request was made to transfer the Insurance Policy of the vehicle, in question, in the name of the complainant. A copy of the transferred RC, was also attached therewith.  Annexure C-4 is the courier receipt, as the said intimation was sent through courier. Not only this, the complainant also sent intimation, regarding transfer of the vehicle, in his name, through, U.P.C. on 18.12.2010. The U.P.C. receipt, in this regard, is Annexure C-6, and it bears the photo impression of the stamp of the Post Office dated 18.12.2010. The U.P.C. receipt was issued by the officials of the Post Office in the due discharge of their official duties.  The official acts, done by the public servants, in the due discharge of their officials duties, carry a presumption of correctness, until proved to the contrary. From these documents, it was proved that due intimation, with regard to the transfer of vehicle, in his name, was given by the complainant, within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the same, to the Insurance Company. Since, despite giving a number of opportunities to file reply and evidence, by way of affidavit(s), it (Opposite Party No.1) failed to file the same, despite the fact that, heavy costs were imposed upon it, the averments, contained in the complaint, duly supported by the complainant, through his affidavit, by way of evidence, remained un-rebutted. It is, no doubt, true that, even if, no evidence is produced by Opposite Party No.1, the Consumer Foras are not required to act blindly, on the basis of the averments, contained in the complaint, and the evidence produced by the complainant. It is the bounden duty of the Consumer Foras, to scan the averments, contained in the complaint, and the evidence, produced by the complainant, even if the same have not been rebutted by the Opposite Party. In the instant case, the authenticity of the documents produced by the complainant, by way of evidence, cannot be doubted. GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002 reads as under:-

“GR.17. Transfers

       On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred  in favour of the   person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

       The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery  to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the Insurance Policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of  Insurance.

       In case of  Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.

       A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of  both Liability Only and Package Policies.

       Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed.  The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued”.

12.            There was due compliance of GR-17, made by the complainant, by intimating the Insurance Company, vide Annexure C-5,  within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in his name alongwith which a copy of the transferred RC was attached. Since due intimation within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant, was given to Opposite Party No.1, it was for it, to transfer the Insurance Policy in his name. In case, Opposite Party No.1, required any document, from the complainant, for the purpose of transfer of the Insurance Policy, in his name, it could ask him to do so. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that letter dated 14.12.2010, C-5  was never received by Opposite Party No.1 is not supported by the evidence, on record, but on the other hand, is belied by it. Since there was due compliance of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002, it was the bounden duty of Opposite Party No.1 to transfer the Insurance Policy, in the name of the complainant, as the accident took place, after about 1-1/2 months of the intimation dated 14.12.2010 sent by him, with regard to the transfer of the vehicle, Opposite Party No.1 was, thus,  deficient in rendering service, by not transferring the Insurance Policy, in the name of the complainant. 

13.            In the grounds of appeal, at page 15, the Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gold Sridhar, Revision Petition No.2964 of 2007 decided on 22.11.2011 and Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996(1) SCC 221 in support of his contentions that, in case, the intimation is not given within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in the name of the transferee, and the accident takes place during the currency of the Policy then the Insurance Company could legally repudiate the claim of the transferee.  There is, no doubt, regarding the proposition of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The proposition of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases does not support the case of the appellant, but, on the other hand, supports the case of the complainant. As stated above, in this case, intimation with regard to the transfer of the vehicle, in his name, was sent by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 on 14.12.2010 vide Annexure C-5 i.e. within 14 days from the date of transfer of the same. If the Insurance Company did not act on the basis of the said intimation, then it cannot find fault with the complainant. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant from the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and same is rejected.

14.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

15.            The order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

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

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

18.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance

Pronounced.

03 .08.2012                                                           sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No. 249/2012)

Argued by: 

Sh.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Dated the       day of August, 2012

ORDER

              Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 41 days (as per the office report 28 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

              For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit of Vineet Solanki, Assistant Manager Legal, Power of Attorney holder of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Plot No.2, DLF Building, Tower-F, I.T.Park, Chandigarh and, finding sufficient cause, the delay, aforesaid, in filing the appeal is condoned.

              The application is disposed of accordingly.

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs, as per the directions passed therein.