Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/460/2012

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv.

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	460 OF 2012
Date  of  Institution	:	03.09.2012
Date   of   Decision	:	19.8.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]   Paramjit Singh, resident of House No.2414, BSNL Society, Sector 50, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

2]   Jashan Brar, resident of House No. 452, Sector 46-A, U.T. Chandigarh.

              Complainants

Vs.

 

1]   HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 124-125, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Director/ Branch Head.

 

2]   Swami Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.72, Industrial. Area-1, Chandigarh, through its Director/ Branch Head.

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN,        PRESIDENT

MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA MEMBER

                               

Argued By:    Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Adv. For OP No.2.

              Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.,       Chandigarh, setting aside the exparte order dated 24.5.2013 passed by this Forum, vide its order dated 22.10.2013, remanded back the present case to this Forum, for deciding the same afresh, on merits as per provision of law with a direction to afford an opportntiy to OP No.1 to file its written version and lead evidence.      

 

           

      

2.      The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Paramjit Singh, complainant no.1, purchased Volkswagen Vento Trendline Diesel car, bearing Registration No. CH01AK-0452, from Complainant No.2, on 26.03.2012. The said car had already been insured with Opposite Party No.1, for the period from 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012 (midnight), for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.8,02,892/-. After the purchase of the said car, complainant No.1 applied to the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, on 29.03.2012, for transfer of the same, in his name. A sum of Rs.400/- was deposited, as fee, vide receipt Annexure C-3, to the said Registering and Licensing Authority, by complainant no.1. As per the said receipt, the Registration Certificate, with the change of name, was to be issued to the new owner (complainant no.1), on 30.05.2012. On 20.05.2012,  the said car, being driven by the father of complainant No.1-Sh. Inderpal Singh, having valid and effective driving licence, met with an accident and got damaged. It is pleaded that Intimation, in this regard, was given to the Police, as well as the Opposite Parties. Spot survey was conducted by the Surveyor, appointed by Opposite Party No.1. The car was towed to the showroom of Opposite Party No.2. An estimate of Rs.6,00,256.48Ps., was issued. Later on, a final bill, in the sum of Rs.2,82,000/- dated 02.08.2012 , Annexure C-6, was issued, by the said workshop of Opposite Party No.2. The entire payment of Rs.2,82,000/- aforesaid, was made by complainant no.1. However, the claim lodged by complainant no.1 was repudiated by Opposite Party No.1, vide repudiation letter dated 26.06.2012 Annexure C-11, addressed to complainant No.2, on the ground that he (complainant No.2) had sold the car, to Paramjit Singh, complainant no.1, on the date of accident i.e. 20.05.2012, whereas, the Insurance Policy, in question, had not been transferred, in his (complainant No.1) name, and, as such, he was not having insurable interest, in the same (car). It is further claimed that complainant no.1 had complied with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by applying for the transfer of car, in his name, within the prescribed period of 14 days though at the time of accident, the Registration Certificate had not been transferred, in the name of complainant no.1, by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, but it was not on account of his fault. It is further pleaded that the repudiation of claim of complainant no.1, was illegal, arbitrary and invalid. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs deficiency in rendering service the instant complaint has been filed.
3.      OP No.1 in its reply stated that the complainant No.1 has have no insurable interest and privity of contract in the policy at the time of alleged accident as it is the admitted fact that complainant No.2 sold his vehicle to complainant No.1 on 26.3.2012, whereas the accident in question took place on 20.5.2012 and the complainant No.1 neither gave any intimation to the answering OP regarding the purchase of the vehicle nor got transferred the policy in his name and as such the complainants have no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. It is asserted that as per GR 17 of Indian Motor Tarrif , the transfer of package policy in the name of transferee can be done on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled in and signed but on the contrary complainant neither intimated the OP No.1 regarding the purchase of the vehicle nor applied for transfer of the policy in his name. It is claimed that the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant No.1 on 29.3.2012 as per statement, affidavit filed by Registering and Licensing Officer Sh. Jai Ram Singh Registering and Licensing Authority, UT, Chadigarh and as per the record pertaining to the vehicle in question. Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.      
4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has maintained that the complaint is not maintainable against it as Opposite Party No.2 is just a dealer of Volkswagon car company and has nothing to do with the repudiation of the insurance claim of the Complainant. Claimed that all averments/ allegations in the complaint relate to the Insurance Company only. Opposite Party No.2 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint as it has no concern with the repudiation.   

 

5.        Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.        The facts which need no further discussion are that complainant No.1 purchased the vehicle Volkswagen Vento Trendline Diesel car from complainant No.2, which was insured for the period from  24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012. Furthe there is no dispute that complainant No.1 applied to the Registering and Licencing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh on 29.3.2012 for transfer of the vehicle in his name by depositing the requisite fee as is evident from receipt Annexure C-3. It is quite evident from the receipt that Registration Certificate with the change of name was to be issued by the authority on 30.5.2012 as per the tentative date given on the receipt. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.5.2012 while being driven by complainant’s father Sh. Inderpal Singh having valid licence. On intimation to the OP NO.1, spot survey was got conducted by the surveyor appointed by OP No.1 and an estimate of Rs.600,256.48 was prepared by OP No.2 and after the repair the final bill in a sum of Rs.2,82,000/- was generated. There is no dispute that the said amount was paid by complainant No.1 as his claim lodged with OP No.1 was closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure C-11), which was addressed to complainant No.2. The closure of the claim as ‘No claim’ was based on the fact that complainant No.2 had sold the car to complainant No.1 on the date of accident but the insurane policy in question was not transferred in the name of complainant No.1 and as such he was not having any insurable interest in the said vehicle. Therefore, through this complaint the complainants have challenged closure of the claim as ‘No claim’
8.               OP No.1 in pursuance of order of the Hon’ble State Commission filed its written statement wherein pleaded  that the complainants have no insurable interest and privity of contract  in the policy at the time of alleged accident as it is the admitted fact of the complainant No.1 that complainant No.2 sold his vehicle to complainant No.1 on 26.3.2012, whereas the accident in question took place on 20.5.2012 and the complainant No.1 neither gave any intimation to the OP NO.1 regarding the purchase of the vehicle nor got transferred the policy in his name and as such the complainants have no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. They further claimed that the complainant failed to act as per GR 17 of Indian Motor Tarrif  as the complainant did not approach OP No.1 with the proof of sale of vehicle in question and transfer of the same in his name nor applied with OP No.1 for the transfer of the policy in his name. OP No.1 relied upon  the statement and affidavit ‘Annexure AY’ filed by the Registering and Licensing Officer and also relied upon the record pertaining to the transfer of registration of the vehicle in question, ‘Annexure AX’ produced before the Hon’ble State Commission, which shows that the vehicle purchased by complainant No.1 was transferred in his name on 29.3.2012 itself  i.e. on the same very date on which the transfer of ownership was applied.  Claiming no deficiency on its part the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9.        Record reveals that complainant No.1 duly complied with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by applying for transfer of the vehicle in his name within the stipulated period and was given tentative date 30.5.2012 to collect the RC. AS  at the time of accident the Registeration Certificate was not transferrred in the name of complainant No.1 as per his knowledge, by the authority concerned so there is no fault on the part of the complainant No.1 in not applying the insurane company to transfer the insurance in his name.  The complainant NO.1 would have been able to apply to OP No.1 for transfer of the insurance policy in his name only after the ‘receipt of the new Registration Certificate, which was expected for 30.5.2012 as per the tentative date given by the authority Unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident before the issuance of registration certificate.

 

10.         It is again reiterated that the factum is well established on record that complainant No.1 purchased the vehicle in question on 26.3.2012 and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without any delay  the complainant NO.1 duly applied for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name on 29.3.2012 and in the receipt issued to him  the tentative date given for collection of RC was 30.5.2012. This fact has also been admitted by the official of the Registering and Licensing Authority before the Hon’ble  State Commission wherein Sh. Jai Ram Singh Registering and Licensing Officer made statement to  this effect. As per his statement deposed before the Hon’ble State Commision on 7.10.2013 he submitted that the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Paramjit Singh (complainant No.1) from the name of Jashan Brar (complainant No.2) on 29.3.2012 i.e. on the same day of the receipt of the application for transfer of the vehicle. At the same time he deposed that there is no written record or receipt having been got signed from Sh. Paramjit Singh that he received his transferred RC on 29.3.2012. The statement so made by the official of the Registering and Licensing Authority, UT, Chandigarh itself is crystal clear to show that the complainant No.1 had no occasion to receive the copy of RC claimed to have been transferred on the same day of the receipt of the application for transfer of the vehicle.  The record too is silent to the effect that the Registering and Licensing  Authority had ever intimated complainant No.1 or called upon him to receive the copy of the RC, which it calimed to have been prepared on the same date of its application. Even the authority concerned had not produced any record showing that the complainant  received the copy of RC transferred in his name on the same day when he applied for the same. In such a scenario we believe the plea of the complainant No.1 duly supported with his sworn affidavit that he received the copy of the RC on 25.5.2012 as he was given tentative date as 30.5.2012 for receiving of the RC  from the Registering and Licensing Authority.
11.        A bare perusal of the GR17 of the All India Motor Tariff reveals the procedure to be followed by the new owners; that the transferee of the insured vehicle is under obligation to intimate the insurance company & to apply for transfer of insurance with the concerned insurance company within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in his name with a valid proof of the same i.e. within 14 days of the transfer of the registration in his name so that insurer could have made necessary changes in the record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.  
12.        In the present case there was no occasion available with complainant No.1 to approach OP No.1 for transfer of insurance in his favour as he was not ready with valid proof i.e. the transfer of ownership in his name which was to be supplied by the concerned authority tentatively upto 30.5.2012. In our considered view the insruable interest in the vehicle got created on the very date when the complainant applied for the transfer of the ownership in his name strictly following the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 . Even as per the procedure laid down in GR 17 the complainant was having statutory period of 14 days in his favour to apply for the transfer of the insurance in his name from the date of transfer of vehicle in his name.  It was misfortune on the part of the complainant that before getting the RC, the vehicle met with an accident and as such he could not avail the benefit of 14 days prescribed under the relevant provision discussed above. In such  circumstances the OP No.1 cannot deny the claim of the complaiannt NO.1 as it has been noted earlier that the insurable interest in favour of the complainant got created on the day when he applied for transfer of ownership by filing all the requisite documents before the concerned authority in adherence to the statutory provisions as discussed above.
13.        It is duly admitted by OP No.1 that the insurance claim has been assessed to the tune of Rs.1,17,665/- by the surveyor appointed by OP No.1, whose affidavit has also been tendered alongwith written statement. For the reasons, best known to OP No.1 they had not placed on record copy of the survey report alongwith reply and affidavit filed. Thereafter at a belated stage an application was moved by OP No.1 before this Forum seeking permission to place on record the said survey report, which was dismissed by this Forum vide separate order.
14.        In view of the above discussion it is concluded that the OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.1,17,685/-  to the complainant No.1 towards his claim as assessed by the surveyor who also submitted his sworn affidavit. The  assessment made by the surveyor has also not been challenged by the complainant No.1. Not only this OP No.1 is also liable to compensate the complainant No.1 for deficiency in service and causing him mental agony and harasment besides thrusting litigation cost  
15.        As OP No.2 is a dealership of Volkswagen company and has no role to play in the closure of the claim of the complainant as such the complaint against it is dismissed.

 

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed against OP No.1 in the following manner:-

 

1.    To pay Rs. 1,17,685/- to the complainant No.1 towards his claim with interest @9% p.a. from the date of claim till payment.
2.   To pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental agony to the complainant NO.1.
3.    To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to complainant No.1.

   

        The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 30 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (i) & (ii) at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

              The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

19.8.2016  

                                                                             Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER