Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/218/2023

NARINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S R CHAUDHARY

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/218/2023
Date of Institution	:	28/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	06/03/2024

 

Narinder Singh, aged 41 yrs s/o Sh. Prem Singh, r/o H.No.508, Sector – 52, Kajheri, Near Shiv Mandir, Chandigarh 160036.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Manager, Office at : Plot No.149, Indl. Area, Next to near Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh 160002.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Managing Director, Regd. Office : ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. S.R. Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kartik, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Narinder Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased a second hand Mercedes Benz car bearing registration No.CH01-AH-0038 through online dealer and at that time the same was registered in the name of Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Edu Academy, Manimajra, Chandigarh. After purchase, complainant got the subject car insured with OP-1 vide insurance policy (Annexure C-2) which was valid w.e.f. 21.11.2022 to 20.11.2023 for IDV of ₹15,23,749/- by paying premium of ₹47,796/- (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”). After obtaining subject policy, dealer of subject car applied to the RLA, Chandigarh, through online, for its transfer in the name of complainant and the date of appointment was fixed as 20.12.2022. On the said date, complainant submitted all the necessary documents required for transfer of the subject car in his name and deposited the requisite fee with the RLA who issued receipt (Annexure C-3) and the complainant was informed that the RC would be delivered at his house. After some time, RC (Annexure C-4) was received by the complainant. The complainant had also sent copy of the receipt (Annexure C-3) issued by the RLA, Chandigarh to the OPs for transfer of the subject policy in his name. Unfortunately, on the intervening night of 31.12.2022/1.1.2023 at around 12:10 a.m. when the subject car reached near Samrala Bye Pass Village Harion Kalan, due to short-circuit entire car was engulfed in fire and turned into ashes within no time. However, complainant and his cousin Lovepreet Singh escaped from the burnt car.  At that time, somebody had dialed the fire brigade and police, as a result of which fire brigade staff and fire vehicle alongwith police came on the spot and on the next morning i.e. 2.1.2023, Samrala Police registered case vide DDR No.021. Copy of DDR and fire brigade report are Annexure C-5 and C-6 and the photographs of the spot are Annexure C-7 to C-9.  OPs were informed on 1.1.2023 through online on the customer care number about the loss of subject car on account of fire due to short-circuit and on 14.1.2023 complainant submitted claim form (Annexure C-10), which was registered by OP-1. Since then the complainant has been repeatedly requesting the OPs to settle the claim, but, the matter is being lingered on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, complainant was compelled to send a legal notice to the OPs on 20.3.2023 (Annexure C-11).  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and also that, in fact, the claim could not be settled due to the fault of complainant who had not submitted the documents despite of the repeated requests of the OPs sent through letters dated 12.3.2023, 31.3.2023 and 12.4.2023. In fact, claim has not been repudiated, rather the same has been closed. It is further alleged that, in fact, insurance policy is in the name of the registered owner Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Edu Academy and as the complainant has failed to get the insurance policy endorsed in his name within the prescribed timeframe, OPs cannot be held liable.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents. However, as OPs failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 8.9.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject car through online dealer and after purchasing the same got the same insured from the OPs by paying premium of ₹47,796/-, as is also evident from the subject policy (Annexure C-2), which was valid w.e.f. 21.11.2022 to 20.11.2023, and thereafter applied to the RLA, Chandigarh for transfer of the subject car in his name by depositing the requisite fee on 20.12.2022, as is also evident from the receipt (Annexure C-3) and the RC was accordingly transferred in his name, as is also evident from copy of RC (Annexure C-4), and the subject car was burnt in a fire due to short-circuit, as is also evident from copy of GDD (Annexure C-5) recorded at Police Station Samrala as well as photographs (Annexure C-7 to C-9), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in not settling the claim of the complainant, till date, and the said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, and complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OPs/insurers are justified in closing the claim due to non-submission of documents by the complainant and the instant consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence placed on record by them and the same is required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Annexure C-2 is copy of the subject policy which indicates that the same was valid w.e.f. 21.11.2022 to 20.11.2023 and the subject car was insured for an IDV of ₹15,23,749/-. As per the case of complainant, after purchasing the subject car through online dealer, he got the same insured from the OPs by paying premium and the said fact has not been denied by the OPs in their written version while replying to para 2 of the consumer complaint, thereby making it clear that the OPs are not disputing that the subject car was got insured by the complainant from the OPs. 
   4. Perusal of Annexure C-3 indicates that the complainant had deposited the transfer fee with the RLA, Chandigarh alongwith documents for transfer of the subject car in his name from the name of erstwhile owner.  Annexure C-4 further indicates that the RC was transferred in the name of the complainant and the validity of the subject car was shown w.e.f. 31.5.2011 to 10.4.2026. Annexure C-5 further indicates that the subject car was burnt in fire on the intervening night of 31.12.2022/1.1.2023. 
   5. Thus, one thing is clear on record that the complainant, after purchasing the subject car through online dealer, got the same insured from the OPs w.e.f. 21.11.2022 to 20.11.2023 by obtaining the subject policy (Annexure C-2) and had applied for transfer of the subject car in his name with the RLA, Chandigarh by depositing the transfer fee as well as documents on 20.12.2022.  Not only this, copy of RC (Annexure C-4) further indicates that subject car had been transferred by RLA in the name of complainant, making it further clear that complainant was the registered owner of the subject car at the time of the fire incident i.e. intervening night of 31.12.2022/ 1.1.2023, when the subject car burnt in a fire.
   6. The claim of the complainant is resisted by the OPs on two grounds – firstly that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents and secondly that complainant could not get the subject car endorsed in his name in the subject insurance policy.
   7. So far as the first ground is concerned, as it stands proved that the complainant had submitted all the documents including copy of GDD and photographs with the OPs, it was their bounden duty to get the subject car inspected and instead of discharging their duty, OPs wrongly opted to close the claim. 
   8. So far as the second ground is concerned, law on this point is very clear that when the RC has already been transferred in the name of the purchaser, certificate of insurance and policy described in certificate are deemed to be have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. the date of its transfer.  In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2020 (18) SCC 224 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 2(30), 146 and 150 Contract Act, 1872 Sections 10, 23 and 24 Liability of insurer to pay compensation - Where person, in whose favour certificate of insurance has been issued transfers to another person ownership of motor vehicle - Certificate of insurance and policy described in certificate are to be deemed to have been transferred in favour of person to whom motor vehicle is transferred, with effect from date of its transfer - Judgment and order of National Commission is unsustainable - Insurer directed pay to Appellant sum of Rs.4,93,500/- as directed by District Forum.”

9. In the case in hand, as it stands proved on record that complainant himself got the subject car insured vide subject policy (Annexure C-2) and RC has also been transferred in his name, therefore, in view of ratio of law laid down in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (supra), certificate of insurance is also deemed to have been transferred in the name of the complainant (purchaser) from the date of transfer of RC. 
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint.  Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and OPs are liable to pay to the complainant IDV of subject car alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by him.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay IDV of ₹15,23,749/- (less compulsory deductible/excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 28.4.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs  within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

06/03/2024 hg	sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member