Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh._Jagdeep Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that previously Gurinder Singh was the owner of Car  vehicle Model i20 make Hyundai bearing registration No.PB-02-AA-0063 which was fully insured with Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.2311200685593001000 valid from 6.2.2015 upto 5.2.2016. Said vehicle was hypothecated with Opposite Party No.3 w.e.f. 4.12.2015 vide loan No.36130133. During the hypothecation with the Opposite Party No.3, said Gurinder Singh sold the car in question to the complainant and at the time of hypothecation Opposite Party No.3 assured the complainant that they will personally transferred all the related documents of said car in the name of the complainant. On 19.12.2015 Opposite Party No.3 received the RC of the vehicle in question from the office of RTO and the same was  handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2015. Unfortunately, the complainant met with an accident on 27.12.2015 and the complainant informed about the said incident to Opposite Party No.2 on 28.12.2015 and thereafter, a damage assessment report was prepared by the surveyor of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 in which it was stated that the car  in question was totally damaged and the claim of complainant is admissible on the claim of cash loss net of salvage basis for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- less salvage value of Rs.2,02,000/- i.e. Rs.2,47,000/- in full and final settlement of own damage claim loss occurred on 27.12.2015 and qua the said final settlement the complainant also sent his acceptance to Opposite Party No.1 vide acceptance deed duly notarized dated 14.3.2016. The complainant astonished to know from the previous owner Gurinder Singh that he had received a letter dated 21.3.2016 from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in which the claim of the complainant was declined by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as the documents were not duly transferred in the name of the complainant within time.  The vehicle of the complainant was duly hypothecated with the Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Party No.3 assured the complainant that they will personally transfer all the related documents of the car in  the name of the complainant and  in this regard, the RC of the sold vehicle was got transferred in the name of complainant on 19.12.2015 and same was handed  over to the complainant on 24.12.2015 and the complainant met with an accident on 27.12.2015.  On the other hand, as per the RC of the said vehicle the complainant became owner on 19.12.2015 after the registration of the certificate in his name and met with an accident on 27.12.2015 within 14 days from the date of ownership of the said vehicle and the complainant has got  right to claim the damage of said vehicle from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 because the 14 days were not elapsed from his ownership if the Opposite Party No.3 is not transferred the policy after assurance to the complainant then the negligence is on the part of Opposite Party No.3 not on the part of the complainant and claim of the complainant is still stand.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay the claim of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/- as settlement amount.

b)      Rs.1 lac as compensation may kindly be ordered to be provided to the complainant from the Opposite Party in the interest of justice.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 ,2  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts  from this Forum. In this case, as admitted by the complainant that the RC of the vehicle in question was transferred in his name on 24.12.2015, but the insurance certificate was not got transferred by the complainant in his name and on the day of occurrence of alleged accident the RC was in the name of complainant, whereas the policy was in the name of Gurinder Singh who was the insured under policy in question, so due to violation and non compliance of GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff (IMT) and section 50  of Motor Vehicle Act, the claim has rightly been repudiated by  the Opposite Parties. From the above, it becomes clear that 14 days time for getting the insurance transferred in not the period exempted from insurance. In the present case neither any application was received with the consent of the insured nor any fee was deposited by the complainant for effecting transfer of the insurance policy in his favour. So, in view of this, the claim is not payable to the insured who had sold his vehicle thereby losing his insurable interest and the claim is also not payable to the complainant who has not gained insurable interest by complying under GR 17, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.3  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the present complaint is not legally maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was averred that the fact of the insurance is to be replied by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and replying Opposite Party has no concern with the insurance policy which was alleged to be purchased by Gurinder Singh from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant has availed a used car loan facility from the replying Opposite Party, as per the policy of HDFC Bank transfer of RC and entry of hypothecation papers with respect to used car loan is to be got transferred through empanelled RTO agent of bank in the District Transport Office. Transferred RC of  the vehicle in question was received on 19.12.2015 and the same was handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2015 as per letter dated 18.1.2016. It is the liability of the complainant to get the insurance policy transferred o his name by submitting the requisite documents as required by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the purpose of transfer  of insurance policy and replying Opposite Party No.3 has no concern with the insurance policy which was availed by previous owner Gurinder Singh. The policy in question was executed between  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and previous owner paid the premium of same to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2   to Ex.C 14  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar Ex.Op1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. Op1,2/2 to Ex.Op1,2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the Sh.steefan Bhangar Ex.Op3/1 and copy of letter Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that previously Gurinder Singh was the owner of Car  vehicle Model i20 make Hyundai bearing registration No.PB-02-AA-0063 which was fully insured with Opposite Party No.2 vide policy No.2311200685593001000 valid from 6.2.2015 upto 5.2.2016. Said vehicle was hypothecated with Opposite Party No.3 w.e.f. 4.12.2015 vide loan No.36130133. During the hypothecation with the Opposite Party No.3, said Gurinder Singh sold the car in question to the complainant and at the time of hypothecation Opposite Party No.3 assured the complainant that they will personally transferred all the related documents of said car in the name of the complainant. On 19.12.2015 Opposite Party No.3 received the RC of the vehicle in question from the office of RTO and the same was  handed over to the complainant on 24.12.2015. Unfortunately, the complainant met with an accident on 27.12.2015 and the complainant informed about the said incident to Opposite Party No.2 on 28.12.2015 and thereafter, a damage assessment report was prepared by the surveyor of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 in which it was stated that the car  in question was totally damaged and the claim of complainant is admissible on the claim of cash loss net of salvage basis for consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- less salvage value of Rs.2,02,000/- i.e. Rs.2,47,000/- in full and final settlement of own damage claim loss occurred on 27.12.2015 and qua the said final settlement the complainant also sent his acceptance to Opposite Party No.1 vide acceptance deed duly notarized dated 14.3.2016. The complainant astonished to know from the previous owner Gurinder Singh that he had received a letter dated 21.3.2016 from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in which the claim of the complainant was declined by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as the documents were not duly transferred in the name of the complainant within time.  The vehicle of the complainant was duly hypothecated with the Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Party No.3 assured the complainant that they will personally transfer all the related documents of the car in  the name of the complainant and  in this regard, the RC of the sold vehicle was got transferred in the name of complainant on 19.12.2015 and same was handed  over to the complainant on 24.12.2015 and the complainant met with an accident on 27.12.2015.  On the other hand, as per the RC of the said vehicle the complainant became owner on 19.12.2015 after the registration of the certificate in his name and met with an accident on 27.12.2015 within 14 days from the date of ownership of the said vehicle and the complainant has got  right to claim the damage of said vehicle from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 because the 14 days were not elapsed from his ownership if the Opposite Party No.3 is not transferred the policy after assurance to the complainant then the negligence is on the part of Opposite Party No.3 not on the part of the complainant and claim of the complainant is still stand.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as admitted by the complainant that the RC of the vehicle in question was transferred in his name on 24.12.2015, but the insurance certificate was not got transferred by the complainant in his name and on the day of occurrence of alleged accident the RC was in the name of complainant, whereas the policy was in the name of Gurinder Singh who was the insured under policy in question, so due to violation and non compliance of GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff (IMT) and section 50  of Motor Vehicle Act, the claim has rightly been repudiated by  the Opposite Parties. From the above, it becomes clear that 14 days time for getting the insurance transferred in not the period exempted from insurance. In the present case neither any application was received with the consent of the insured nor any fee was deposited by the complainant for effecting transfer of the insurance policy in his favour. So, in view of this, the claim is not payable to the insured who had sold his vehicle thereby losing his insurable interest and the claim is also not payable to the complainant who has not gained insurable interest by complying under GR 17, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections.

9.       The only dispute for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is that  the claim is not payable to the insured who had sold his vehicle thereby losing his insurable interest and the claim is also not payable to the complainant who has not gained insurable interest by complying under GR 17, but this contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is not tenable.  It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that  ttransfer of vehicle in the name of the buyer is not necessary and in this regard, we are supported with case law  II (2008) CPJ 324 (NC) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND KATARIA (NC 325 wherein it is mentioned as under:-

"(ii) Insurance-Insurable interest-Vehicle sold -No request made for transfer of policy in name of buyer-Accident claim repudiated- Contention, buyer has no insurable interest, not acceptable-As per circular issued by General Insurance Company, on transfer of vehicle, benefits under policy in force, automatically accrue to new owner-complaint allowed by Forum-Appeal against order dismissed-No interference required in revision"

So in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, the repudiation letter does not carry any weight.

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and loss occasioned by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complainant is entitled to grant of claim amount of Rs.2,47,000/- from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  while a sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on account of litigation expenses and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. However, complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum