Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-08-J-0004. The said vehicle is insured with Opposite Party vide policy no.3001/243092999/00/000 which is valid for the period from 31.03.2022 till 30.03.2023. The said vehicle met with an accident on 08.09.2022 at Moga and due intimation was given to Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party had not approved the claim qua the said accident and as such the complainant has paid the entire repair amount from this pocket. The complainant approached the Opposite Party many times and request them to pay the claim amount, but they refused to pay the same. Complainant has also served a legal notice dated 14.10.2022 upon the Opposite Party, but to no effect. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.19,448/- with regard to the claim of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-08-J-0004.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of damages, mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in summary procedure under C.P. Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court; the complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Commission as well as from Opposite Parties, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Further averred that the vehicle in question bearing no.PB-08J-0004 is registered in the name of Sneh Maheshwari, resident of Bathinda as per the record of Opposite Party and she has taken the insurance policy of the above said vehicle which was insured by branch office Bathinda and the policy no.3001/243092999 was issued from the period 31.03.2022 to 30.03.2023. As per the record of Opposite Party, the claim was lodged by the said insured qua the alleged loss of vehicle on 12.09.2022/13/092022 and the claim was registered by Opposite Party, vide claim no.MOT12713079 and thereafter the Opposite Party demanded the documents to process the claim and ultimately on non supplying of the documents and other formalities to process the claim, the claim was treated as withdrawn and is being closed for ever by Opposite Party and intimation to this fact was also given to insured vide letter dated 28.09.2022. Moreover, as per the documents, it has come on record that the complainant has no insurable interest in the insurance policy as policy was not endorsed after its alleged purchase of vehicle as mentioned in complaint and nothing on record in the shape of an evidence which proves this fact which is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in question, moreover at the date of loss of the vehicle, the vehicle is/was insured in the name of Sneh Meheswari as mentioned above in the record of Opposite Party and the claim was withdrawn being closed vide letter dated 28.09.2022. However, even there is no privity of contract between complainant and Opposite Party and as per law he is not entitled to any claim as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy; this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; the complaint is  liable to be dismissal as there is no repudiation letter on the court filed from where it is cleared that any cause of action arisen to complainant. On merits, all other allegation made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       The complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Party denying the objections raised by it in its written reply.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Parties have placed on record affidavit of Sh.Divyam Suri, Manager Legal ICICI Lombard Ex.OPs/1 alongwith repudiation letter Ex.OPs/2.

6.       We have gone through the documents/affidavits submitted by complainant and Opposite Parties.

7.       The case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-08-J-0004 and the said vehicle was duly insured with Opposite Party for the period from 31.03.2022 till 30.03.2023. During the policy coverage, the said vehicle met with an accident on 08.09.2022 at Moga and claim was lodged with Opposite Party, who treated the claim of complainant as withdrawn as being closed.

8.       It has been contended by ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties that the vehicle in question bearing no.PB-08J-0004 is registered in the name of Sneh Maheshwari, resident of Bathinda as per the record of Opposite Party she has taken the insurance policy of the above said vehicle for the period 31.03.2022 to 30.03.2023 and as per the record of Opposite Party, the claim was lodged by said insured qua the alleged loss of vehicle on 12.09.2022/13/09/2022 and thereafter the Opposite Party demanded the documents to process the claim and ultimately on non supplying of the documents and other formalities to process the claim, the claim was treated as withdrawn and is being closed. Further contended that as per the documents, it has come on record that policy was not endorsed/transferred in the name of the complainant after its purchase.

9.       Ex.OPs/2 i.e. the letter issued by the Opposite Party company is silent to the effect that why the claim raised qua the vehicle in question has been closed. Also no other document in support of the said letter has been placed on record. In the absence of any valid objection by the Opposite Party, the complainant is entitled for the claim in question. Record reveals that the vehicle in question was duly transferred in the name of the complainant and Registration Certificate of the said vehicle was also issued in favour of the complainant, which was issued on 12.01.2015 and is valid upto 11.01.2030. But for the reasons best known to the complainant, the insurance of the policy qua the vehicle in question left unendorsed. We are of the concerted view that since the vehicle in question was duly transferred in the name of the complainant and he being the owner of the vehicle is entitled for the insurance claim as the vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident and thus, the complainant is entitled to get the claim from insurance company. For the opinion above, we are guided by the following provision of Motor Vehicle Act:-

Section 157 (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 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.

          Further to this effect there are umpteen numbers of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, NCDRC as well as by various High Courts and State Dispute Redressal Commissions.

In the reported decision 1997 ACJ VII = ILR 1996 Karnataka 2955 and = 1996 3 Karnataka Journal 443 National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Smt.Lakshmi and others, the facts of the said case exactly fits into the present facts of this case. It is held as 157. 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 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.

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.

The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form of the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the 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.

From a reading of the above section it is clear that sub-section (2) of section 157 of the Act provides only a procedure to intimate the fact of transfer of vehicle, to the insurer in order to make necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the policy to bring it in conformity with the deemed transfer as contemplated under section 157(1) of the Act for the purpose of indemnifying the transferee relating to the risk covered under the policy.  Non-compliance with this procedure does not automatically invalidate the deemed transfer that had taken place by virtue of operation of law as contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 157 of the Act.  Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the insurance company.

10.     In view of the discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.19,948/- as repair charges to the complainant. Further Opposite Party is directed to pay compository costs of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The pending application (s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission