DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH =============== [Consumer Complaint Case No: 398 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 30.08.2011 Date of Decision : 10.10.2012 -------------------------------- Balbir Pal Dandyan son of Bhalla Ram, resident of House No. 179, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana. ---Complainant V E R S U S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: SCO No. 24-25, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Near Gopal Sweets, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the Complainant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant was owner of one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. HR-34-B-0003. The said vehicle was got insured with the Opposite Party by purchasing a private car package policy for the period valid from 19.7.08 to 18.7.09 after paying a premium of Rs.11,825/-. Photocopy of the policy is Annexure C-1. The Complainant further discloses that he entered into any agreement with Harjeet Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh resident of Zirakpur to sell the vehicle after a part payment was made and the balance of consideration amount was to be paid at the time of transfer of ownership. Necessary paper work was also got done in this regard. While the efforts were being made for the documentation of transfer of the vehicle in the name of the Buyer, unfortunately, on 12.7.2009, the vehicle in question was stolen from the house of Harjeet Singh and an F.I.R. was lodged with the police on 12.7.2009. Even the untraced report was procured on 22.2.2010 which are annexed as Annexure C-2 and C-3. The Opposite Party was immediately intimated about the occurrence of the theft but they asked the Complainant to submit the untraced report so that the claim could be processed. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other but later on, in the month of June issued an undated letter through which the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant did not have any insurable interest. The Complainant further claims that in the event of the ownership of the vehicle not having been transferred in the name of the Buyer, the Opposite Party was could not have repudiated the claim on this ground. The Complainant also claims that the sixty per cent of the price of the vehicle was to be paid after getting NOC and transfer of ownership. Thus, the Complainant did have an insurable interest in the said vehicle when the same got stolen. The Complainant had preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Party on the grounds of violation of Section 2(g)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking the following relief:- i) | To pay Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; | ii) | To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony; | iii) | To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs; |
The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and is supported by his short affidavit. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. 3. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that it is admitted case of the Complainant that after having sold the vehicle and also having handed over the possession of the same to the person to whom the said vehicle was sold after receiving consideration amount hence the Complainant has ceased to have any insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Even the F.I.R. was lodged by Sh. Harjeet Singh who has categorically stated this fact in the F.I.R. itself; thus, as the sale is already complete, the Complainant is no more a bonafide consumer. The fact about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. after a lapse of as many as 14 days is also pointed out mentioning that the theft had occurred on 28.6.2009 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.7.2009. A judgment titled Rang Lala Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 1.9.2011 along with case titled New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Sh. Dharam Singh, decided on 4.7.2006 by the Hon’ble National Commission are quoted to this effect. The Opposite Party claims to have processed the claim of the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Party is neither verified nor supported by any affidavit. 4. As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 27.09.2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Opposite Party were heard. Hence, in the absence of the Complainant, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 27.09.2012. 5. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 6. The present Complaint filed by the Complainant who himself has admitted to the fact that the said vehicle in question that was stolen away was actually sold to one Sh. Harjeet Singh. Even the fact that the paper work necessary for the transfer of the vehicle in the name of the new owner was under way is admitted. The sale consideration amount having been received by the Complainant and the possession of the vehicle too was handed over to the new owner. In the present circumstances, we feel that though it is the vehicle which is insured and not the owner of the vehicle and the rightful owner is to be compensated for the loss suffered by him if there is any mis-happening with the insured vehicle. It is also mandated by the Indian Motor Tariff Rules that in order to get the insurance policy transferred in the name of new owner, the vehicle in question needs to be got registered within a stipulated time. In the event of any failure on the part of the purchaser to get the vehicle registered within a required period of time, it is very much clear that the entitlement of laying any claim also ceases. In the present case, we feel that the Complainant who had actually effected the sale of his vehicle, though the date of such sale is not mentioned, but the statement of the Complainant as given to the Surveyor clearly mentions that the vehicle was sold on 15.5.2009; hence, the Complainant had actually ceased to have any insurable interest in the vehicle in question consequent to 15.5.2009. In the given situation, the Opposite Party is well within its right to declare that the Complainant had ceased to have any insurable interest in the vehicle and question and is also not qualified to be a consumer to file the present complaint against it. 7. The aspect as pointed out by the Opposite Party about the delay in filing the F.I.R. for as many as 14 days is also not explained in a convincing manner by the Complainant. Thus, the ratio of the judgments quoted by the Opposite Parties Rang Lala Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Sh. Dharam Singh (surpa) squarely apply to the present complaint. 8. In the present circumstances, the present complaint fails and deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly. No costs. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 10th October, 2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
