Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/981/2022

SUKHLEEN SANDHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENARALI INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

BS TOOR

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/981/2022
Date of Institution	:	16/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/04/2024

 

Mrs. Sukhleen Sandhu w/o Dr. Antarpreet Singh Toor, resident of House No. 251, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Future Generali Insurance, SCO No.4-5, 2^nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2. HDFC Bank, SCO No.3, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Brahminder Singh Toor, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh.Kapil Khanna, Advocate for OP-1 (through VC)
	:	Sh.Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Mrs.Sukhleen Sandhu, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 29.3.2022, complainant had purchased a second hand Ford Endeavour vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01-BL-7266 (hereinafter referred to as “subject Vehicle”) which was duly insured with OP-1/insurer vide insurance policy (Ex.C-1) for the period w.e.f. 3.3.2022 to 2.3.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).  At the time of purchasing the subject vehicle, complainant had applied for second hand car loan from OP-2, which was duly approved and OP-2 had also charged amount for transfer of registration certificate. After purchasing the subject vehicle, complainant kept on reminding OP-2 for getting its registration transferred in her name and at that time the agent of OP-2 had informed the complainant that as there were two challans pending against subject vehicle, ownership could only be transferred after clearance of the said challans. In the month of June 2022 courts were closed due to summer vacation and on opening of courts, immediately complainant applied for transfer of registration/ownership of the subject vehicle in her name on 5.7.2022 and accordingly the Registering Authority has approved the transfer on 11.7.2022 vide receipt (Ex.C-1/A). Thereafter, complainant approached office of OP-1 on 13.7.2022 for getting the insurance policy transferred in her name and as it was about 3:00 p.m., official of OP-1 told the complainant that the policy can be transferred on the next day i.e. 14.7.2022 and at that time handed over list of documents required and fee to be charged (Ex.C-1/B) for transfer of policy.  On the morning of 14.7.2022 around 4:45 a.m. the subject vehicle, being driven by Brahminder Singh Toor, who was going to drop son of his friend at Vikas Nagar, on the road adjoining PGI, near Drain (Nallah), met with an accident with a stray animal, as a result of which it was damaged. The complainant called the official of OP-1 on mobile who had also earlier given list of documents and informed about the accident.  Thereafter complainant had taken the subject vehicle to service centre after consultation with the officials of OP.  After taking photographs and video, complainant lifted the subject vehicle from the spot to drop the same at Saluja Ford, Mohali (i.e. the repairer).  Without any delay, the complainant informed OP-1 about the accident through email dated 14.7.2022 (Ex.C-3). Thereafter, complainant requested OPs through emails (Ex.C-4) to process the claim, but, the matter was delayed and the approval could not be given.  When the complainant did not receive any communication from OP-1 regarding approval of claim, she visited the office of OP-1 and at that time its official informed that as the surveyor has not given satisfactory report, now claim has been handed over to the investigator.  The investigating officer approached the complainant on 26.7.2022 and recorded the statement of driver and the complainant and also clicked photographs of the spot.  It is only on 12.8.2022, OP-1 declined the claim through email dated 15.8.2022 (Ex.C-5) on the ground that the subject vehicle was purchased in April and till July the insurance policy was not transferred.  Thereafter the complainant approached the IRDAI by lodging claim and on 16.8.2022 she again received email (Ex.C-8) intimating about its rejection. As complainant had duly informed OP-1 within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the subject vehicle, her claim was wrongly repudiated. The subject vehicle was repaired by the repairer who raised bill of ₹3,42,951 (Ex.C-8). The complainant also served a legal notice (Ex.C-9) upon the OPs, but, with no result.  In this manner, act of OP-1 in wrongly repudiating the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. OP-1, in its written version, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action.  However, it is admitted that the subject policy was issued by the answering OP to the previous owner and the complainant had lodged claim with it.  It is alleged that immediately after receiving intimation, answering OP had deputed Naveen Kumar on 15.7.2022 for assessment of loss who found the subject vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the month of April 2022, but, she got the ownership transferred on 11.7.2022.  It is further alleged that the claim was also investigated by the investigator Parwinder Singh who found that the subject vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant on 11.7.2022 only and as she could not get the same transferred in her name within 14 days from the date of purchase, claim was rightly repudiated by OPs. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. OP-2, in its written version, inter alia, took preliminary objections of non-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability.  However, it is admitted that the subject vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the answering OP, which was also financed by it in favour of the complainant and the same was also insured at the time of its sale.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. The complainant chose not to file rejoinder to the written version of OP-1.  In rejoinder to the written version of OP-2, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject vehicle from OP-2 on 29.3.2022 and got its registration certificate transferred in her name from the Registering Authority, Chandigarh on 11.7.2022, as is also evident from copy of Form 24 (Motor Vehicle Register) (Ex.C-1/A) and on 14.7.2022, i.e. well within 14 days of its transfer in the name of complainant, the subject vehicle met with an accident, regarding which intimation was also given to OP-1/insurer on the same day, as is also evident from copies of emails (Ex.C-3 & C-4) and the claim has been repudiated by OP-1 on the ground that the insurance was not transferred within 14 days of transfer, which is a breach of the policy terms and conditions, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1/insurer is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1 has rightly repudiated the claim and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OP-1.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the moot question if the complainant, after getting the subject vehicle transferred in her name from the Registering Authority, had intimated OP-1/insurer within the prescribed period of 14 days, as required under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, and OP-1 has wrongly repudiated the claim.
   3. Perusal of Ex.C-1 clearly indicates that the subject policy was issued in the name of Baaz Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile owner of subject vehicle) which was valid w.e.f. 3.3.2022 to 2.3.2023. Ex.C-1/A is copy of Form 24 (Motor Vehicle Register), which clearly indicates that the subject vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant on 11.7.2022 by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. Ex.C-3 is copy of email dated 14.7.2022 which was sent by the advocate of complainant to OP-1 intimating that the subject vehicle had met with an accident at 4.45 a.m. and also that complainant had purchased the same from the erstwhile owner and she had applied for transfer of the registration certificate in her name on 5.7.2022 and the same was transferred in her name on 11.7.2022 and the subject policy was duly given in the office of the OP on 13.7.2022 for its transfer in the name of the complainant within 14 days of the transfer of the registration certificate with the request to do the needful at the earliest. 
   4. Thus, one thing is clear from the aforesaid email (Ex.C-3) that on the transfer of the registration certificate of subject vehicle in the name of complainant on 11.7.2022, as is also evident from Ex.C-1/A, complainant through her advocate had intimated the OP on 14.7.2022, i.e. within two days of transfer of registration certificate, for the transfer of the insurance policy in her name.
   5. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Rule 144 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which prescribes the period of 14 days within which the transferee of the vehicle is required to intimate the Insurance Company after transfer of the vehicle in his/her name. Rule 144 ibid is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“144. Transfer of certificate of insurance.—When the ownership of a motor vehicle covered by a valid insurance certificate is transferred to another person together with the policy of insurance relating thereto the policy of insurance of such vehicle shall automatically stand transferred to that other person from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the said person shall within fourteen days of the date of transfer, intimate to the authorised insurer who has insured the vehicle, 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 authorised insurer may make the necessary changes in his record.”

6. OP-1/insurer had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide email dated 15.8.2022 (Ex.C-5) on the ground that the complainant had not intimated it within 14 days from the date of purchase of subject vehicle and also for transfer of insurance policy within the said period.  The relevant portion of the repudiation letter is reproduced below for ready reference :-

       “I’m extremely sorry for the delay in response.  According to the update received from our respective team, would like to inform you that during investigation it was observed that vehicle was purchased in April and till July vehicle policy was not transferred hence claim is not admissible from insurer end.”

 

7. However, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, as it is clear that the transferee/subsequent purchaser is required under law to intimate the insurer within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle in his/her name and not from the date of purchase of the vehicle,  and further when it stands proved on record that the complainant had intimated OP-1/insurer about the transfer of subject vehicle in her name on 13.7.2022, which was transferred in her name on 11.7.2022, i.e. within two days of the transfer of vehicle, undoubtedly the complainant had intimated OP-1/ insurer about the transfer of subject vehicle in her name within the prescribed period and OP-1/insurer has wrongly and arbitrarily repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had not intimated it within 14 days of the purchase of the subject vehicle, that may be in the month of May.
8. Moreover, when it is further an admitted case of the parties that the accident had taken place within three days of the transfer of the subject vehicle in the name of the complainant and the complainant had already given intimation to OP-1 about the transfer of the same and had made request for transfer of insurance policy in her name well within the prescribed period of 14 days, the case of the complainant is squarely covered under the terms and conditions of the subject policy and it is safe to hold that OP-1/insurer is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OP-1/insurer
9. Now coming to the quantum of amount to be awarded in the instant case, as the complainant has produced tax invoice (Ex.C-8) issued by the authorised service centre/repairer M/s Saluja Motors Private Limited, Mohali, which indicates that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹3,42,951.57 on account of repair of the subject vehicle and on the other hand OP-1/ insurer has failed to get the loss assessed through its surveyor and loss assessor, we are of the opinion that OP-1/insurer is liable to pay the said amount of ₹3,42,951.57 (rounded off to ₹3,42,952/-) to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment caused to her.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹3,42,952/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 15.8.2022 onwards.
2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

01/04/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member