Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/560/2019

Harmanpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan M. Vohra

28 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/560/2019
Date of Institution	:	29/05/2019
Date of Decision	:	28/09/2021

 

Harmanpreet Singh son of Sh. Gurpreet Singh resident of House No.42, Prem Nagar, Near Government School, Ambala City, District Ambala, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector-28A, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (U.T) 160002 through its Manager/authorized person.

2^nd Address :

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi 110017 through its Manager/authorized person.

2. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Manager/authorized person.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. J.P. Nahar, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for OP-2 (OP-2 ex-parte)

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are, on 4.9.2017 complainant purchased vehicle bearing registration No.HR-78B-5280 from its previous owner, Sh. Sandeep Kumar and paid the full consideration to him. He applied to the Registering Authority, Ambala for transfer of the registration in his name which was done on 5.9.2017. Averred, the complainant stepped into the shoes of the previous owner.  However, before the period of 14 days of the transfer of RC, the vehicle in question met with an accident on the intervening night of 10/11.9.2017 in Chandigarh regarding which DDR No.10 dated 11.9.2017 was registered with the Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh. The complainant also immediately informed the OP/insurance company on its toll free number and also wrote email. After multiple requests, the complainant was told to bring the accidental vehicle to Maruti Agency at Panchkula on 23.11.2017. Claim was registered and one P.K. and Company was appointed as surveyor. After survey/inspection by the OP and Maruti Agency, the vehicle was declared as total loss.  However, the OP rejected the claim as no claim vide letters dated 27.10.2018 and 6.12.2018 on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the vehicle in question was insured with it for ₹7,37,134/-.  Maintained, complainant is not the insured as the policy was purchased by one Sh. Sandeep Kumar and the OP is only liable to the insured. Averred as per GR-17 for transfer of insurance, the purchaser was required to request the insurer alongwith the consent of the transferor, but, he failed to do so.  Denied the complainant stepped into the shoes of the previous owner or that he informed the OP within 24 hours of accident over toll free number.    Averred the surveyor as per his report recommended for ₹5,08,935/- on repair basis subject to admissibility of claim by the insurer. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Neither reply and evidence on behalf of OP-2 were filed despite grant of sufficient opportunity nor anybody appeared on its behalf on 1.1.2020.  Therefore, vide order dated 1.1.2020 opportunity to file reply and evidence on behalf of OP-2 was closed and it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments.
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, the facts with regard to transfer of the RC of the vehicle in the name of complainant from the previous owner namely Sh.Sandeep Kumar, subsequent accident and damage of the vehicle, lodging of the claim and repudiation of the same by the OP-Insurance Company are not much in dispute before us. 
7.     Admittedly, when the vehicle met with an accident on the intervening night of 10/11.9.2017, the insurance policy still stood in the name of the previous owner i.e. Sh. Sandeep Kumar due to which the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the OP-Insurance Company on the ground complainant having no insurable interest. Therefore, the core question for determination before us is whether the complainant had any insurable interest at the time when the vehicle in question met with accident. Answer to the same lies in the negative and law on the point is well settled. 
8.     The Hon'ble National Commission recently while dealing with similar proposition in case titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane & Ors., R.P. No.3896 of 2013 decided on 27.7.2020 observed as under :-

“6.  The issue involved in this petition came up for consideration of this commission in RP No. 3270 of 2018 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Enamul Haque order dated 04.09.2019 and the following view was taken:-

“4.  Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act which deals with the transfer of insurance, reads 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.

(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.

5.   The above referred statutory provision came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC).  In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Maruti car was purchased in the name of one Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and was insured in her name.  The premium for the insurance was paid by the appellant company in whose favour the vehicle had been transferred.  The registration of the vehicle was transferred to the appellant company on 15.06.1989.  On 26.06.89, the appellant intimated the transfer of registration and asked for transfer of the insurance policies.  There was no response to the said request till the vehicle met with an accident on 17.09.89 in which the Managing Director of the appellant got injured and his sister died. The appellant asked for assessment of the damage to the vehicle.  There being no response from the insurer, the appellant approached the Consumer Forum at Chandigarh by way of a Consumer Complaint. The complaint was allowed but the order was set aside by this Commission. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to whether the appellant was entitled to indemnity without the insurance policies having been transferred in its name.  This Commission, while dismissing the Consumer Complaint, had taken a view that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act applied only in relation to a third party risk and did not apply to a policy covering risk of damage to the vehicle or to the person of the insured.  Dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia observed and held as under: -

9.   …………… Then comes Section 157 which we have extracted earlier. This provision lays down that when the owner of the vehicle in relation whereto a certificate of insurance is issued transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle, the certificate of insurance together with the policy described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the new owner of the vehicle with effect from the date of transfer. Sub-section (2) requires the transferee to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the policy described therein in his favour.

10.    There can be no doubt that the said chapter provides for compulsory insurance of vehicles to cover third party risks.

                           Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih's case because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and 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. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct.

6.   Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly held that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for the deemed transfer of the certificate of insurance, applies only in respect of third party risk and it does not cover the damage caused to the vehicle or to the insured himself.  The Hon’ble Apex Court expressly held that if the insurance policy covers risks such as damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter in the realm of the contract for which there has to be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee. 

7.   In the present case, 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 the complainant on that date.  Therefore, though the insurer would be liable in respect of a third party risk, it would not be liable in respect of damage to the vehicle of the insured himself.  Since the claim lodged by the complainant/respondent was not a third party claim but was a claim on account of loss of his own vehicle and the insurance had not been transferred in his name on the date the vehicle was stolen, the petitioner company was not liable to reimburse him for the loss suffered by him. ”

 

After going through the ratio of law, the Hon'ble National Commission finally concluded as under :-

“7.  Since the insurance policy had not been transferred in favour of the complainant and in fact he had not even applied for such transfer by the date on which the vehicle was stolen, the petitioner company is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by him, there being no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner. As far as respondent No. 3 is concerned he is also not entitled to any reimbursement he having no insurable interest in the vehicle after 15.06.2006.”

9.     Facts of the aforementioned authority are almost analogous to the facts of the case in hand and the law laid down in the authority ‘supra’ is fully applicable to the present case on all its fours.   Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the complainant as there was no privity of contract between them.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/09/2021	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	President