DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ================== Complaint Case No | : | 340 OF 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 01.06.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 18.01.2012 |
[1] Dr. Anil Dass son of Sh. J.S. Dass, resident of HIG 18, H.B. Chowk, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula-133302. [2] Ishwar Sharma son of Sh. Gulshan Sharma, resident of House No. 7, Khera Sita Ram, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. ---Complainants V E R S U S [1] ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Regd. Office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051. [2] ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 24-25, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. ---- Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENTMRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for Complainants. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs . PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1. The Complainant No. 1 was the registered owner of a Maruti Car make Wagon R LXI-85-III, bearing Registration No. HR-49-A-6653. The car was insured with the Opposite Parties. Complainant No.1 sold this car to Complainant No. 2 on 28.01.2009. Unfortunately, the car was stolen from the premises of Complainant No. 2 in the intervening night of 25.02.2009. The Complainant No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. (Annexure D) with the Police Station Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. Thereafter, Complainant No. 1 informed the insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle and filled up the claim form for processing the claim. On receipt of the claim form the OPs appointed a Surveyor to investigate the claim. However, after receipt of all papers the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that the Complainant No. 1 had no insurable interest in the vehicle (Annexure F). It has been averred in the complaint that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle still stood in the name of the Complainant No. 1 and the Insurance Policy was also in the name of the Complainant No. 1. The Complainants have thus filed the instant complaint with a request that the OPs be directed to pay the insured amount in the name of either Complainant No. 1 or Complainant No.2, besides compensation, interest and cost of litigation. 2. After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. 3. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant No.1 had sold the vehicle in question to Complainant No.2 on 28.1.2009 and after that date, Complainant No.1 had no insurable interest in the vehicle as the possession of the same was already handed over to a thirty party i.e. Complainant No.2, who was not the insured. In this regard, Opposite Parties have placed reliance on Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:- TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE “(1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” Relying on the above statutory principle, the Opposite Parties have stated that as 14 days had expired and the vehicle had not been transferred in the name of Complainant No.2, the claim is not payable. Complainant No.1 has no insurable interest and Complainant No.2 is a third party to the contract hence not entitled to any amount. OPs have also placed reliance on Dharmendra Nath Thakur and Jyotindra Nath Thakur both sons of Shri Jivendra Nath Thakur Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Division Manager, decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 29.01.2010, in support of their contentions. On merits, OPs have reiterated the above submissions. While stating that they have rightly repudiated the claim, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. From the facts of the case, it comes out that Complainant No. 1 had sold the car to Complainant No. 2 on 28.1.2009 and the car was stolen on 25.2.2009. As per the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was mandatory that an information of the transfer of the vehicle be made by the new transferee to the insurance company within a period of 14 days. Even though the possession of the vehicle had been handed over to the new purchaser, but the registration certificate has not yet been transferred and hence intimation to the Opposite Parties had also not been made in the circumstances. The F.I.R. regarding the loss of vehicle was lodged by the Complainant No.2; whereas, the claim form was filled up the Complainant No.1. The insurance company has refused to make payment for the claim stating that Complainant No.1 has no insurable interest in the vehicle; whereas Complainant No.2 is a third party to the contract between the Complainant No.1 and the insurance company. 7. The Complainant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Simmi Dhingra, reported as 2010(4) CLT 67, wherein the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla has held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 50 – Sales of Goods Act, 1930, Sections 30 and 46 – Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Ground that Respondent had ‘no insurable interest’ in the vehicle as F.I.R. registered by Complainant stated that he had purchased the vehicle from Respondent – Document of title is registration certificate issued by the competent Registering and Licensing Authority under the MV Act, 1988 – Unless it was legally and properly transferred with the concerned Registering and Licensing Authority, registered owner i.e. Respondent in this case continued to hold a valid and good title to the vehicle in question – Provisions of Sales of Goods Act cannot override special provisions of MV Act, 1988 – There is enough material on record to suggest that it was the Respondents, who had ‘insurable interest’ – Order of the District Forum allowing the complaint upheld.” To our mind, the ratio of aforesaid judicial pronouncement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. The Complainant No.1 does not have any insurable interest in the vehicle and Complainant No. 2 has not got the vehicle transferred in his name as per the statutory requirements. We feel that the repudiation of claim of the Complainants by the OPs was, therefore, completely justified. 8. The Complainant has also relied on case New India Insurance Company Vs. Deepak Dwivedi & Anr., Appeal Case No. 87 of 2011, decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh on 03.05.2011, wherein it has been held as under:- “9. It was only after transfer of the registration certificate, in favour of Complainant No.2/ Respondent No.2, that any intimation could be given to the insurance company, for making endorsement, in his name. Since, registration certificate was, in the name of Complainant No.1/ Respondent No.1 and the insurance policy was also admittedly issued, in his favour, after obtaining premium by the Insurance Company, when the vehicle met with an accident, and the claim was filed with the Insurance Company, it could not repudiate his claim.” 9. However, in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1528 of 2007, decided by the Hon’ble the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 18.10.2011, it has been held as under:- “In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the Policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle. Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.” In this cited case also, as the insurance of the car had expired the Complainant had got the policy renewed in the name of the previous owner. Relying on G.R.17 regarding transfer of insurance policy, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the transferee was required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer along with details of registration of the vehicle, so that a new insurance policy be issued in his name, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had decided in favour of the Insurance company. The Hon’ble National Commission also held that:- “It would be seen that on receipt of the information from the transferee the Insurance Company is required to make changes in its record and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance. In the present case, admittedly as pointed out earlier the transferee i.e. Respondent did not get the vehicle transferred in his name and intimate the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle within 14 days of the registration in his name to enable the Petitioner to make necessary changes in its record and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance. The transferee did not get any novation of contract of insurance in respect of the person or property and therefore, Respondent did not have any insurable interest on the date on which the vehicle met with an accident.” 10. In similar circumstances and on identical facts, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Commission in case Dharmendra Nath Thakur and Jyotindra Nath Thakur both sons of Shri Jivendra Nath Thakur Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Division Manager, decided on 29.01.2010, has held that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle. 11. Relying on the above judgments, as well as the factual position of the instant complaint, we are of the considered opinion that insured (Complainant No.1) has no insurable interest after the sale of the vehicle to Complainant No.2 and Complainant No.2 has not got the vehicle transferred in his name as per the statutory requirements. He is hence a third party to the claim. Thus, the complainants have not been able to prove their right to the claim repudiated by the OPs. Therefore, we dismiss the present complaint. No order as to costs. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 18th January, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
