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

========

Complt. Case No :1143 of 2009

Date of Institution:   12.08.2009

Date of Decision  :   25.05.2010

Mandeep Singh Gill son of Mohinder Singh, R/o H.no.4726, Darshan Vihar, Sector 68, Mohali (Punjab).

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Quiet Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

2]       Globe Toyota, B-51, Indl. Area,, Phase-6, Mohali (Punjab)

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Ashish Pannu, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

None for OP No.2

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                    This complainant has been instituted by complainant, Sh.Mandeep Singh Gill seeking compensation of Rs.3,42,467/- as estimated cost of repair of vehicle as quoted by Op no.2, Rs.5,000/- for traveling expenses, Rs.2.00 lacs for harassment, Rs.1.00 lacs for financial loss & mental agony and Rs.12,000/- as cost of litigation on account of deficiency on the part of OPs.

                    The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1]                 The complainant purchased a Toyota Innova Vehicle from one Amarjit Kaur.  The vehicle was registered in his name in Nov., 2008 vide Ann.C-2.  This vehicle was insured in the name of Amarjit Kaur with the OP No.1 from 25.8.2008 to 24.8.2009 vide policy at Ann.C-3.  Under the policy, the owner/driver was insured for Rs.2.00 lacs and under unnamed PA cover 8 persons were insured for Rs.1.5 lacs each.  Unfortunately, the car met with an accident on 1.5.2009.  The complainant received some injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged.  On this date the insurance for the car still stood in the name of Amarjit Kaur.

                    A DDR No.36, dated 1.5.2009 was filed with the Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh, copy of which is at Ann.C-4.  The OP Insurance Company was informed about the accident the next day.  The representative of OP Company however held that since the insurance policy was in the name of the previous owner, the complainant was not entitled to any benefit from them.

                    As per quotations of OP No.2, a total amount of Rs.3,42,467/- (Ann. C-5) was the estimated cost of repair of the vehicle. Since the complainant was unable to pay this heavy amount, so the vehicle was still lying with OP No.2 at the time of filing the complaint. 

                    The complainant had also got the insurance policy transferred in his name on 6.5.2009 after paying the required premium.  New Policy is at Ann.C-6.  However, inspite of this the OP had rejected his claim.  The rejection letter dated 17.6.2009 is at Ann.C-7. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the above rejection is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service.

2]                 In the reply filed by OP No.1 it is submitted that the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the policy of insurance at the time of accident as the policy was not in the name of the complainant at the time when the accident took place.  It is admitted that the policy was transferred in the name of complainant on 6.5.2009 but prior to that date, he did not have any insurable interest under the policy of insurance as the policy at that time was in the name of the earlier owner.  It is also submitted that the rejection of claim was justified and there was no deficiency on the part of OP No.1.

3]                 The OP No.2 filed a short reply and stated that an estimate of Rs.3,43,467/- was prepared for repair of the accidental car. They have submitted that the complainant has taken delivery of the repaired vehicle on 1.9.2009 after making payment of repair charges. 

4]                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by the parties in support of their contentions.

5]                 The complainant had bought the car from the previous owner in Nov, 2008.  However, despite having got the vehicle transferred in his name, he had failed to get the insurance policy transferred to his name even till May, 2009.  Therefore, when his vehicle met with an accident on 2.5.2009 and he approached the OPs for payment of the repair bills, the OPs refused to entertain his claim.

6]                 The ld.Counsel for the OPs has stated that the OPs would be liable to pay repair bills only if the insurance of the car stood in the name of the complainant.  Since this was not the situation, they have repudiated his claim by their letter dated 17.6.2009 (Ann.C-7). 

7]                 Looking at the facts of the car, it is evident that the complainant has been lax in getting the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name.  Under the circumstances, he cannot now ask the OPs to make good his loss for the time when he had no contract with them.  His contract with them for insurance started only on 6.5.2008. 

8]                 The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Dharmendra Nath Thakur and Jyotindra Nath Thakur both sons of Shri Jivendra Nath Thakur Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, decided on 29.1.2010 in Para No.7 has categorically held that;-

“7. On the point of automatic transfer of insurance  as per General Regulation 10 of the India Motor Tariff, the same has to be rejected as this provision of the India Motor Tariff was in existence only upto 30th June, 2002 and has been superseded by a new Motor Tariff Regulation.  General Regulation No.17 which is the new provision for transfers does not provide for any automatic transfer and mandates that the transferee will have to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing.  On both these counts, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/complainants have no merit.”

9]                 In view of above judgment and the facts of the case mentioned above, the complaint can only be dismissed.  The OPs cannot be made liable for the insurance, which does not stand in the name of the complainant on the date of accident.  We therefore dismiss this complaint.

10]                   Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25.05.2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                  Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’