Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/50/2021

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shailendra Sharma

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/50/2021
Date of Institution	:	22/01/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/03/2023

 

Baljeet Singh aged 36 years son of Sh. Gurcharan Dass, r/o Flat No.3040-A, MIG Flats, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office : IFFCO Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110317 through its General Manager.
2. The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., 2 B&C Madhya Marg, Sector 28 A, Chandigarh 160002.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Counsel for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Baljeet Singh, complainant against the 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 on 13.9.2019, the complainant had purchased a BMW car bearing registration
   No.CH-01-AW-6302 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) from one Sh. Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Harjit Singh. At the time of purchasing the subject car, it was lying hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and the entire amount was paid by the complainant and after that NOC was also issued to the complainant by the financier. The subject car was already insured vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) w.e.f. 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020 before purchase of the same by the complainant.  The entire premium was paid by the complainant to the OPs from his own pocket by issuing cheque, but, since the RC of the subject car was in the name of previous owner, the insurance policy was also issued in the name of previous owner, Sh.Amandeep Singh.  After getting the subject car insured, complainant applied for transfer of ownership in his name with the Transport Department, Chandigarh on 4.11.2019 by depositing the relevant documents vide receipt (Annexure C-2).  Thereafter the ownership of the subject car was entered in the name of the complainant and fresh RC (Annexure C-3) was issued to the complainant.  On the intervening night of 7/8.11.2019, when the subject car was parked outside the earlier residence of the complainant at flat No.606, 6^th Floor, Shivalik Apartment, Kharar, it was set on fire by some antisocial elements as a result of which the same was badly damaged. The complainant immediately lodged complaint with the police authority and accordingly FIR No.0366 of 2019 (Annexure C-4) dated 8.11.2019 under Section 336/435/34 IPC was registered. The complainant immediately intimated the OPs about the said incident and thereafter had taken the subject car to Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh where the same remained parked and the complainant was compelled to pay ₹2,64,600/- as parking charges for using the parking space w.e.f. 9.11.2019 to 31.1.2020.  Even during that period, no surveyor was sent by the OPs to assess the loss of the subject car. OPs failed to carry out the survey despite of repeated requests of complainant. OPs had written letter dated 3.1.2020 (Annexure C-6) to erstwhile owner of subject car, Sh. Amandeep Singh intimating him that one Sh.Mohit Sharma was appointed as surveyor and the surveyor after examining the claim documents had informed that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Sh.Amandeep Singh, hence the insured has no insurable interest since the subject car was alleged to have been sold to Sh. Baljeet Singh, who was not having any insurance contract with the OPs and accordingly the claim was repudiated.  Identical letter was also sent by the OPs to the complainant on 21.1.2020 (Annexure C-7). Thereafter the OPs, issued revised letter 24.1.2020 (Annexure C-8) intimating that the claim of the complainant has been rejected.  Aforesaid Krishna Automobiles, Chandigarh finally repaired the subject car and handed over the same to the complainant on 31.1.2020 and the complainant had paid an amount of ₹4,71,329/- to it on account of repair charges, raised vide bill (Annexure C-9).  As the aforesaid amount has been spent by the complainant from his own pocket and he had also paid the premium to the OPs for the relevant period, OPs are liable to pay the claim.  It is further alleged that had the OPs immediately appointed surveyor and assessed the loss, the subject car could have been repaired in the month of November 2019 and due to the aforesaid act of the OPs, complainant was compelled to pay parking charges. The aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 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 locus standi, maintainability and concealment of material facts.  On merits, admitted that the subject car was insured with the OPs at the relevant time, but, alleged that the OPs were never informed about the purchase of the subject car by the complainant from the original owner, Sh. Amandeep Singh nor any documents to that effect were annexed by the complainant even with the consumer compliant.  It is further alleged that as per the case of the complainant, he had purchased the subject car much prior to 23.8.2019, but, he did not get the same transferred in his name within 14 days, as mandated under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even no document qua the NOC obtained by the complainant from the financier has been given by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant was required to get the vehicle transferred in his name during the subsistence of the previous policy itself which was valid upto 30.9.2019, but, he did not get the same transferred in his name even after 37 days when the loan was sanctioned to him.  As regards obtaining of the full insurance policy (Annexure C-1) from 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020, the same is in the name of Sh. Amandeep Singh and not in the name of complainant. Payment of premium, even if paid by the complainant, is immaterial as the policy has been obtained in the name of Sh. Amandeep Singh and the complainant has no insurable interest in the subject car since he cannot acquire any insurable interest in the vehicle belonging to some other person. In fact, the subsequent insurance policy was obtained by Sh. Amandeep Singh which was valid w.e.f. 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020 and since the complainant had purchased the vehicle much prior to 23.8.2019, but, he did not get the same transferred in his name, he has violated Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  Moreover, when the complainant got the subject car transferred in his name only on 4.11.2019, he could not have got it insured w.e.f. 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020 and in this manner the complainant, who is not an insured in the policy and is a stranger to the contract of insurance, is not entitled for any claim and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs.  It is further alleged that in various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission it has been held that deemed transfer under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to third party risks only and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself which falls outside chapter XI of the new Act and is in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and transferee, hence the OPs are not liable to pay the claim.  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 his 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 their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that one Sh. Amandeep Singh was the registered owner of the subject car till 3.11.2019 and the subject car was also insured by the OPs vide policy (Annexure C-1) w.e.f. 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020 in the name of the aforesaid registered owner and the subject car was set on fire by some miscreants on the intervening night of 7/8.11.2019 at Shivalik Apartment, Kharar, regarding which FIR (Annexure C-4) was lodged at P.S. Sohana, District SAS Nagar and intimation was also given to the OPs and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the subject car, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the subject car and he is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not having any insurance contract with the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant had purchased the subject car from the erstwhile owner Sh. Amandeep Singh and thereafter he got the same transferred in his name from the Transport Department of Chandigarh and the new RC was also issued in his name and further that the subject car was got insured by the complainant by paying the premium, OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint be allowed.
   3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that the complainant was stranger to the contract of insurance at the relevant time of the policy which was valid w.e.f. 1.10.2019 to 30.9.2020 which was in the name of Sh. Amandeep Singh and was not got transferred by the complainant in his name by intimating the OPs about the said purchase of the subject car even after transfer of RC in his name on 4.11.2019, the claim of the complainant qua the own damage to the subject car does not cover under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the same is only restricted to third party risks, OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs. 
   4. 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 legal point i.e. if the purchaser of the vehicle is entitled for the insurance claim where the insurance policy has not been transferred in his name after purchasing the vehicle and even after transfer of RC, and also if the insurer is liable to pay the claim amount where there is no contract between the purchaser and the insurance company i.e. the insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of the purchaser.
   5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the complainant drew our attention to Section 157 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under :-

“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 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.

1[Explanation.—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.]

(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 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.”

 

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that in fact the provisions of the aforesaid section are attracted only in respect of third party risks and it would not be liable in respect of damage to the vehicle of the insured himself i.e. the complainant in this case.  In support of his argument, learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Enamul Haque, R.P. No.3270 of 2018 decided on 4.9.2019, in which it was held as under :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 157 Theft of vehicle – There was no contract of insurance between the petitioner and the complainant on the date the vehicle was stolen, since the insurance policy had not been transferred in the name of that date – ‘Insurer could not be liable in respect of damage to the vehicle – No claim for third party – Concurrent orders are not sustainable and set aside – Revision dismissed.”

7. Learned counsel for the OPs has further relied upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mangu Singh, R.P. 2204 of 2013 decided on 7.2.2019 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane and 2 Ors., R.P. No.3896 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2020 on similar proposition of law.
8. It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1996 (1) SCC 221 that deemed transfer under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to third party risks and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself which falls outside Chapter XI of the new Act and is in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 
9. Thus, one thing is clear from the provisions as laid down in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments/orders passed in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.(supra), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Enamul Haque (supra), Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mangu Singh (supra) and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane and 2 Ors. (supra), that as there was no contract of insurance between the complainant and the insurer/OPs on the date the subject car was set on fire by the miscreants, since the insurance policy admittedly had not been transferred in the name of the complainant on the relevant date i.e. the date of damage, OPs/insurer cannot be held liable in respect of damage to the vehicle, especially when there was no claim for the third party and the own damage is not covered under the policy.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to fail.

4.         In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/03/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member