Delhi

North East

CC/126/2018

Aarfin - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.126/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Aarfin S/o Mohd Yasin R/o 412 Gali No. 1 Kardampuri, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: Himgiri Auto (India Pvt Ltd.) A-9/1, Jhilmil Industrial Area New Delhi 110095 Also at: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 401 & 402, 4th Floor, Interface 11, New Linking Road Malad(W), Mumbai-400064	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

07.07.2018 04.11.2022 02.03.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the complainant had purchased a car bearing Registration No. DL1RT7798, Make Hyundai, Model Xcent VTVT and got the same insured from the Opposite Party vide policy No. 3004/HI/10446819/00/000 for a period from 26.10.16 to 26.10.17 for payment of Rs. 23,220/- on account of insurance premium. The said vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank for Rs. 4,54,443/- which was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs. 14,771/- each. On 25.04.2016, the complainant had entered into a mutual agreement with Anis therby handing over the subjected vehicle to him on the condition that the Anis shall pay a sum or Rs. 15,000/- for 31 months to the Finance company. Thereafter, Anis was plying the said car as Taxi for earning his livelihood and had been paying monthly instalment of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. On 19.10.17, when Anis went to offer ‘Namaj’ at about 08.05 p.m by properly locking the car near Toll Tax booth in Kamal Vihar and came back at around 08.45 p.m he found that the vehicle was stolen. He immediately called the PCR and an FIR bearing no. 033182/2017 was registered at PS Karawal Nagar. Vide the order dated 13.02.18, the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Bhawani Sharma, had accepted the ‘Untraced’ report filed by the concerned SHO. Vide letter dated 24.10.17, the Opposite Party had intimated the complainant that his claim has been registered vide claim no. MOT07009910 and that M/s Jain and Associates had been appointed as the surveyor in this case. Vide letter dated 15.11.17, the aforesaid surveyor desired the complainant to furnish certain documents and information for processing of claim. During the survey, the said surveyor had taken undue advantage of Anis who is also an illiterate person. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.12.17, the Opposite Party again desired certain original documents just to harass the complainant and causing delay in reimbursing the claim to the complainant. Vide letter dated 09.03.2018, the Opposite Party had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground “it has been noted that the insured vehicle has been sold to Mr Anis Khan, but there has been no transfer of ownership in the RC and in the insurance policy. This constitutes to violation of policy terms and conditions and section 157 of MV Act 1988 which states that the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with MV Act 1988, transfers to  another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy, described in the certificate shall have to transfer the policy in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle was transferred with 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes”.  The complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,48,873/- towards claim of the stolen vehicle being  the value of IDV as per the insurance policy along with @ 18 % on the aforesaid amount till realization, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement.  It is submitted by the Opposite Party that the present complaint is false and frivolous. The vehicle bearing no. DL-1RT-7798 was insured with Opposite Party vide policy no. 3004/HI-10446819/00/000 for IDV of Rs. 4,48,873/- for a period from 27.10.2016 to 26.10.2017 in the name of Mr. Aarfin subject to terms and conditions of policy. The said vehicle was stolen on 19.10.2017 regarding which complaint registered FIR No. 033182 dated 19.10.2017 at e-police station-M.V Theft, Crime Branch Delhi. On receiving the intimation about theft of insured vehicle immediately Opposite  Party appointed an independent surveyor to investigate the theft claim and during investigation it came to light that the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Mr. Anish on 25.04.2016 but neither the ownership was changed in RC nor in insurance policy certificate. It is submitted that Mr. Anish submitted the copy of the sale agreement between registered owner/complainant and himself, further Mr. Anish gave statement in his own handwriting on non-judicial stamp paper regarding the purchase of the said vehicle but the ownership of vehicle was not transfer in his name nor intimated the insurance company regarding change of ownership and obtained the policy in the name of registered owner, the investigator submitted Final Investigation Report with the statement of new owner and his neighbours to the effect that Mr. Anish was owner of the above stolen vehicle, therefore the complainant was not having any insurable interest at the time of theft, therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed for misrepresentation.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. It is submitted that document filed by the Opposite Party nowhere confers right of ownership upon Mr. Anis.

Evidence of the Parties

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. Krashanu Pundir, Manager (Legal), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., having office at 4^th Floor, Red Fort Capital, Parasvnath Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market New Delhi-110001. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Parties. It is an admitted case as revealed from the record that Complainant had purchased a car and the same was insured by the Opposite Party from 26.10.2016 to 26.10.2017. It is also not disputed that the said car was stolen on 19.10.2017 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The Complainant filed claim with the Opposite Party and the same was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the Complainant had sold his vehicle to one Mr. Anis but the name of the owner was not changed in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and in the insurance policy.
6. The question is whether the Complainant has sold his vehicle to one Mr. Anis on 25.04.2016. The case of the Complainant is that he has entered into an agreement with Mr. Anis and handed over the possession of the vehicle to him on the condition that
   Mr. Anis shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant for 31 months for paying the installments of the loan of the vehicle. The Complainant has filed an agreement dated 25.04.2016 which was entered into between the Complainant and Mr. Anis. The perusal of the said agreement shows that in the said agreement the Complainant has been repeatedly mentioned as “Seller” and Mr. Anish has been repeatedly mentioned as “Purchaser” of the car in question. The case of the Complainant is that due to some inadvertence this has been mentioned so i.e. Complainant as “Seller” and Mr. Anis as “Purchaser”. It is important to note that if the stand of the Complainant is believed then after coming to know about the said inadvertent mistake they would have entered into some corrigendum or fresh agreement stating therein that in the agreement dated 25.04.2016 the Complainant has been mentioned repeatedly as “Seller” and Mr. Anish has been mentioned repeatedly as “Purchaser”. However, this was not done by the Complainant and Mr. Anis. Further, the perusal of the said agreement clearly indicates that the vehicle in question was sold by the Complainant to Mr. Anis. Further, it is settled law that oral evidence cannot be led to falsify a documentary evidence. If for the sake of arguments the stand of the Complainant is believed then he could have very easily filed the affidavit of Mr Anish in the court to substantiate his stand. Thus, it is prove that the Complainant has sold his vehicle to Mr. Anish on 25.04.2016.
7. The Opposite Party has relieved upon a judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi which is reported as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Kumar Khatri  III (2018) CPJ 603 (NC) wherein it was held that in case the documents placed on record make it clear that the vehicle was sold by the Complainant but no steps were taken for getting the policy transferred in the name of purchaser and in such case the  Complainant had no insurable interest on the date of incident. It was further held that the original owner is not entitled to get the claim as he is not left with any insurable interest in the vehicle.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Complainant has sold his vehicle on 25.04.2016 to Mr. Anis and name of owner was not transferred in the insurance policy and in view of the above mentioned case law the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The complaint is rejected.
9. Order announced on 02.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President