Delhi

North East

CC/27/2018

Shri Anil Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 27/18

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma R/o:- House no.-  M-75, Uldhanpur, Naveen Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, Red Fort Capital Parsvnath Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

01.02.2018 06.02.2020 06.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts of the present complaint shorn of unnecessary details as narrated by the complainant are that he had purchased a second hand Hyundai Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL 8C-S-3048 from its owner Shri Aash Mohammad on 30.04.2017 and due to the change of residence of the complainant, he could not get the RC of the vehicle transferred in his name due to not having any address proof of the new address. For the said reason when the vehicle became due for insurance on 04.05.2017, the insurance vide policy No. 3001/130529596/00/800 w.e.f 04.05.2017 to 03.05.2018 was taking from OP in the name of the vehicle’s previous owner Aash Mohammad for a total IDV of Rs. 1,52,775/- and a premium of Rs. 8,373/- was paid by the complainant online through his ICICI Credit card number ending xxx6008 on 04.05.2017 itself and thereafter policy certificate was issued by OP.  However, when the subject vehicle was stolen on 11.09.2017 against which FIR bearing no. 028268 under Section 379 IPC was lodged by the complainant and theft claim intimation was given to the OP, the OP neither made any payment nor it responded to complainant’s query on the progress of the claim. Therefore the complainant, feeling aggrieved at the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP was constrained to initiate legal proceedings by way of the present consumer complaint against the OP praying for issuance of directions against the OP to release the IDV amount i.e. Rs. 1,52,775/- of the subject car stolen and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and damages and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation charges.
2. Complainant has attached copy of RC in the name of Aash Mohd, copy of Form 29 of notice of ownership of motor vehicle from executed by Aash Mohd in favour of the complainant, copy of DL and Aadhar Card of the complainant in support of change of address updated in Aadhar Card, copy of credit card e-statement issued by ICICI Bank highlighting payment of Rs. 8,372/- made by complainant towards premium of the policy to OP, copy of insurance cum-policy schedule certificate issued by OP in the name of Aash Mohd, copy of FIR and untraced report order of the concerned ACMM Shahdara Distt Courts. 
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 07.02.2018. OP entered appeared and filed written statement in which it resisted the present complaint by pleading preliminary objection that on intimation of claim by the complainant, when the OP thoroughly investigated the claim and scrutinized the claim documents, it discovered that the complainant though had purchased the subject car from Aash Mohd but he never got either the RC or the insurance policy transferred in his name which amounts to violation of provisions under Section 50 and 157 of Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff (IMT) despite passing of four and half months prior to theft i.e. from May 2017 to early September 2017 and therefore the complainant had no insurable interest on the date of loss and consequently due to no privity of contract between him and OP is not entitled to any relief since he obtained the policy in the name of previous for the period 04.05.2017 to 03.05.2018 having already purchase the subject vehicle on 30.04.2017. The OP contended that on receiving theft intimation and appointment of IRDA Licensed Surveyor / Investigator, the said investigator filed its report dated 18.09.2017 which included the statement of the complainant as well the previous owner of the vehicle Aash Mohd who submitted that he had sold the subject vehicle to the complainant on 30.04.2017 for 1.5Lakh and handed over all the relevant documents of the vehicle to him including Form 29 and 30 duly signed by him and the same was also confirmed by the complainant to the effect that the vehicle was purchased  from Aash Mohd on 30.04.2017 and has been using the same ever since. Therefore the surveyor has recommended rejection of the claim on grounds of complainant having no insurable interest.  Accordingly, OP vide letter dated 16.10.2017 to Aash Mohd repudiated the theft claim on grounds of violation of Section 157 of MV Act. The OP cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of its contention and ground taken for rejection of claim and also placed reliance on provision of GR-17 of IMT pertaining to transfer of ownership and liability under cover and necessary endorsement required under the IMT provisions. On the ground / defence so taken, OP urged for dismissal of the complaint
4. OP has attached copy of insurance cum policy schedule, private car package policy terms and conditions, copy of intimation sheet of theft claim, copy of investigator report 18.09.2017, copy of letter dated 23.09.2017 by Aash Mohd to OP undertaking to lodge no insurance claim with respect to the subject vehicle sold by him to the complainant, copy of letter dated 23.09.2017 by complainant to OP intimating the factum of theft of the subject vehicle in the intervening night of 10.09.2017-11.09.2017, copy of repudiation letter dated 16.10.2017 and copy of GR-17 clause of IMT.
5. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant urging that he was advised by the official of OP who executed the policy in question on receipt of insurance premium for the complainant that there shall be no problem in getting the vehicle insured in the name of its previous / registered owner and therefore it was incorrect on the part of OP to have repudiated the theft claim illegally in prejudice to insured’s interest.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith written statement as Ex OPW1/A to OPW1/D.
7. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion and reiteration of their respective grievance / defence. OP placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Maha Singh 2014 (2) CPR 284, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Goli Sridhar I (2012) CPJ 101 (NC), Ram Singh Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd II (2014) CPJ 99 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasir Shah Bashir I (2016) CPJ 461 (NC) and HDFC Ergo General insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balraj Singh IV (2015) CPJ 682 apart from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 754 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there being no transfer of policy in the name of petitioner / transferee he had no insurable interest in the vehicle and respondent / opposite Party had no liability to indemnify the complainant. OP placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Vijayan M. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance co. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 466 laying emphasis of requirement of Section 157(2) of MV Act and GR-17 of IMT as mandatory in the event transfer of ownership of vehicle with respect to no claim payable without having any insurable interest in the event of sale of the vehicle and non compliance of section 157(2) of MV Act requiring transfer of certificate of insurance in the event of transfer of ownership.
8. It is not in dispute and not rebutted by the complainant about the factum of purchase of the subject car bearing no. DL 8C S 3048 from Aash Mohd on 30.04.2017 post which the insurance cover was taken from OP in the name of Aash Mohd w.e.f 04.05.2017 to 03.05.2017 and the complainant had paid the premium of Rs. 8,372/- to OP on the date of insurance i.e. 04.05.2017 through his credit card. The RC too stood in the name of Aash Mohd  on the date of theft of the vehicle i.e. 11.09.2017, thereby implying that RC as well as insurance certificate were not in the name of complainant and admittedly so as per statements given by complainant as well as Aash Mohd to OP’s investigator to this effect. Notwithstanding the same the factum of theft of the subject motorcycle was reported to OP by the complainant since the subject car was in his possession / ownership on the date, time and place from where it was stolen. The investigator, in his observation after thorough detailing reached the conclusion that there was no transfer of insurance or RC in favour of the complainant and therefore he had no insurable interest qua the subject stolen vehicle. Therefore the OP vide repudiation letter dated 16.10.2017 to the register owner and insured rejected the claim as “No Claim”. The ground of delay in intimation has not been taken in the said repudiation letter by OP and therefore is hit by the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 of Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in CA no. 8884-8900/2010 decided on 28.07.2016 judgment and not being entertained / considered in defence.
9. The issue of Insurable Interest is no longer res Integra in view of land mark judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sombir in RP no. 3216/15 decided on 16.08.2016 in which the Hon'ble National Commission discussed the provision of GR-17 of IMT wherein a duty has been cast upon the transferee to make appropriate application for transfer of policy in his name in the case of vehicle transfer within 14 days of such transfer failing which he shall not be liable for payment of claim in eventuality of any claim arising on account of any untoward incident. The Hon'ble National Commission in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Henry Rajesh IV (2016) CPJ 558 (NC) held when the complainant did not get insurance policy transferred in his name as required u/s 157(2) of MV Act which therefore did not stands for transfer in his name on or before the date of incident, complainant was not entitled to any compensation relying upon its previous judgment of Sandeep Gupta Vs United India Insurance Co. ltd. in RP no. 2355/20012 I (2014) CPJ 493 (NC).The Hon'ble National Commission in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyam Bansal I (2017) CPJ 410 (NC) and Murlidhar Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 510 (NC) held that complainant committed illegality in obtaining insurance of vehicle in the name of previous owner where as he should have got vehicle transferred in his name and also insurance policy in his own name and failure to do so gives rise to no insurable interest of complainant in such an event since he was duty bound to have applied to insurance company for transfer of policy which if stood in the name of previous owner, shall deny the complainant of having any insurable interest in the matter and therefore repudiation of any such claim in this event is justified. The Hon'ble National Commission in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Prakash II (2018) CPJ 381 (NC) held in the said case where the vehicle purchased by the complainant from previous owner was neither intimated to the insurance company for transferee insurance in his name before date of incident and RC to existed in the name of previous owner that complainant had no contract of insurance with OP and dismissed the complaint. The Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC in recent judgment of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sharwan Goel and Anr. II (2019) CPJ 35 (Del.) held in a case where the complainant had not applied for transfer of policy in his name, he had no insurable interest on the day of theft as deemed transfer of policy under Section 157 (2) of MV Act, 1988 is restricted only to 3^rd party risks placing reliance on its own earlier judgment in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shri Praveen Dabas in FA / 871/ 2010 disposed of 13.05.2016.    
10.  In view of the facts of the present case and acts of omission / commission on the part of complainant in failure to take steps to get the insurance certificate and RC transferred in his name, he failed to comply with the terms and condition of the insurance policy, mandatory provision of Motor Vehicle Act as also Motor Tariff General Regulation. The law laid by Hon’ble NCDRC in such cases is settled as dealt with in exhaustively legal discourse and we are of the firm view that the complainant had no insurable interest with regard to the subject vehicle in view of having failed to get the RC as well as insurance certificate transferred in his name post purchase of the vehicle on 30.04.2017 prior to the date of theft on 10.09.2017, thereby having no insurable interest with regard to the subject and therefore not entitled to any claim arising thereof. Ignorance of law is no excuse as goes the maxim. The complainant had sufficient time from April till September 2017 to do the needful compliance and take necessary steps as per the mandatory provisions of MV Act but failed to do so. As the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating the theft claim. Therefore, the complainant has no locus standi and is not entitled to any claim. The complaint is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits and misconceived on erroneous assumption of law. No order as to costs.          
11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12.   File be consigned to record room.
13.   Announced on  06.02.2020

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member