BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 855 of 2010.
Date of institution: 14.09.2010.
Date of decision: 19.01.2016
Ramesh Chander aged about 50 years son of Shri Jagan Nath, resident of House No. 157- Madan Puri, East Bhatia Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No. 28 & CS, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd Corporate Office, 4th and 5th floor, IFFCO TOWER, Plot No. 3, Sector 20, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager.
- Shri Pawan Kumar, Authorized Agent of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd. District Courts Complex, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. …opposite parties.
Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA………………………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Nitin Arora, Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2
Sh. M.L.Bansal Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.
ORDER
1. Complainant Ramesh Chand has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the payment of Rs.19,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/-.
2. Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR02R/5308 (Annexure C-1) and he purchased the aforesaid car from its previous owner Sh. Manjit Singh Chauhan son of Shri Hem Singh Chauhan on 30.4.2009 as per affidavit and other necessary Forms. The aforesaid car was got insured by Shri Manjit Singh Chauhan, vide cover note bearing No. 38061771 (Annexure C-2) valid from 28.12.2008 to 27.12.2009 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,40,000/- and a premium of Rs. 4024/- was paid in this regard to the OPs. It has been further alleged that on 2.6.2009 the aforesaid car was badly damaged due to accident and he repaired the same from Suvidha Motors near S.K.Hospital, Yamuna Nagar Road, Jagadhri, by spending a total sum of Rs. 19,000/- and make the payment vide bill No. 5765 dated 10.1.2010(Annexure C-3). It has been further mentioned that the OPs have putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and lastly refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. So, there is a great deficiency on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OPs No.1 & 2 filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and on merit it has been submitted that as per the facts, OP No.1 had issued cover note bearing No. 38061771 and subsequently insurance policy in the name of Manjit Singh son of Sh. Hem Singh in respect of the car bearing registration No. HR-02R-5308 valid w.e.f. 28.12.2008 to 27.12.2009. Later on the said Manjit Singh sold his car on 30.4.2009 by way of affidavit to Ramesh Chander i.,e. complainant. However said Ramesh Chander i.e. transferee did not approach the opposite party to get the insurance policy transferred in his name by paying requisite fees as per section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The relevant section mandates that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in prescribed format 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 transferee’s favour and the insurer shall make thenecessary changes in the certificate/policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. However, the complainant transferee herein did not make any such application for transfer of policy to the opposite party.
4. It has been further submitted that since there is no privity of contract between the opposite parties and complainant transferee, thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as per dictum held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (1996) CPJ page 1 (SC) that in cases of vehicle damage i.e. 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, there is 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. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had not lodged any claim with the OPs regarding the loss/damage to the vehicle in question. There is a specified procedure that the insured is duty bound to inform the insurer immediately after the loss and the insurer will appoint surveyor to assess the loss and on the submission of the final report of the company surveyor the claim amount is assessed as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but in the present case no intimation of loss/damage is given to the OPs. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. OP No.3 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint, OP No.3 has unnecessarily been dragged into litigation as the OP No.3 is not an agent of OPs No.1 & 2 and on merit denied all the averments mentioned in the complaint as he is not the agent of OPs No.1 & 2, so the question of making any request does not arise at all and there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. The present complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous qua the OP No. 3 may kindly be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
6. To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Insurance cover note as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill for repair of car as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure c-4, Photo copy of affidavit of Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Hem Singh Chauhan as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
7. On the other hand, counsels for the OPs made a statement that they did not want to adduce any evidence on behalf of OPs and their written statement may be read as evidence on behalf of OPs and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
8. We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in their reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
9. It is not disputed that the car bearing registration No. HR-02R/5308 was insured with OP insurance company vide its cover note bearing No. 38061771 (Annexure C-1) for a sum insured of Rs. 1,40,000/- valid w.e.f. 28.12.2008 to 27.12.2009. It is also not disputed that the car met with an accident on 2.6.2009 regarding this an FIR No.95 dated 2.6.2009 was registered with Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar( copy of FIR Annexure C-4).
10. The only plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company is that at the time of alleged accident i.e. on 2.6.2009 neither the complainant Ramesh Chander was registered owner of the car bearing registration No. HR-02R-5308 nor he was insured person as per the insurance cover note bearing No. 38061771 issued by OPs No.1 & 2. The registration of the car bearing No. HR02R-5308 was transferred in the name of complainant on 2.9.2009 which is evident from Registration Certificate (Annexure C-1) whereas the accident took place on 2.6.2009 i.e. near about after three months. Even the complainant failed to transfer the insurance in his name by paying the requisite fees within a period of 14 days as per section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and referred the case law Om Parkash Sharma vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2008) CPJ page 65 NC) and 2010(II) CPJ page 170 National Commission in which it has been held “that transferee complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the insurer since transferee did not effect any transfer of the policy in his name as per section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act by paying requisite fees”.
11. The second plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company is that the complainant had not lodged any claim with the OPs No.1 & 2 regarding loss/damage to the car in question. There is a specific procedure that the complainant is duty bound to inform the insurer immediately after the loss and the insurer will appoint surveyor to assess the loss and on submission of the final report by the surveyor the company will settle the claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy but in this case no intimation of loss/accident/damage has been given to the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company further argued that the complainant has not applied for transfer of insurance in his name within a period of 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed format to the insurer for making necessary charges and further as no claim has been lodged with the OPs Insurance Company. Hence, there was no privity of contract between the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the complainant transferee. Hence the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and the same view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 1(1996) CPJ page 1 (S.C).
12. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that OPs insurance company has wrongly withheld his genuine claim and reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint.
13. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 as the complainant has totally failed to convince this Forum that on what date and month he lodged the claim with the insurance company. We have perused all the contents of all the para of his complaint minutely but not a single word has been mentioned in his complaint that he had ever lodged any claim with the insurance company. He has mentioned only in para No.7 of the complaint that OPs putting off the matter with one or other pretext and some days ago OPs refused to accede the request of the complainant, except this one, nothing has been mentioned regarding lodging of claim with the insurance company. It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant has filed only a photo copy of invisible bill of repair dated 10.01.2010 with this complaint whereas accident took place on 02.06.2009 and no report of any surveyor or any expert person has been filed to prove his case. Further from the perusal of Annexure C-1 Registration Certificate it is evident that name of the complainant Ramesh Chand has been incorporated as registered owner on 2.9.2009 whereas the alleged accident took place on 2.6.2009. Meaning thereby, that complainant Ramesh Chander was not registered owner at the time of alleged accident. Further from the perusal of Annexure C-2 Cover note it is also evident that complainant was not insured person as the insurance cover note stands in the name of previous owner Manjeet Singh. Even the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he ever applied for transfer of insurance cover note in his name with the OPs Insurance Company. The law cited by the counsel for the OPs is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. Resultantly, after going through the above noted facts and circumstances and going through the law cited by the counsel for the OPs we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable, hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court. 19.01.2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG )
PRESIDENT,
SAROJ BALA (S.C.SHARMA )
MEMBER MEMBER.
