Punjab

Sangrur

CC/467/2017

Gurinder Singh Chahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.B.S.Phumanwal

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  467

                                                Instituted on:    14.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       23.01.2018

 

Gurinder Singh Chahal son of Sh. Kaur Singh, resident of Village Duggan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. 4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFCO Tower Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its General Manager.

2.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 through its Manager.

3.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurinder Singh Chahal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a second hand card Scoda Model 2015 bearing registration number PB-22-M-8788 on 4.7.2017 from one Atul Nagpal son of Bhajan Lal Nagpal, resident of Abohar District Fazilka for his personal use, which was insured with the opposite parties.  Further case of the complainant is that he submitted all the documents to the office of DTO Sangrur for change of ownership of the car in question in his name and also deposited the required fee on 14.7.2017 which was received by him on 17.7.2017.  It is further averred that the previous owner of the car had got insured the vehicle in question from the OPs by paying the amount of Rs.30023.75 and the OPs issued policy number 30359119 for the period from 31.3.2017 to 30.3.2018.  Further case of the complainant is that after change of ownership of the vehicle in his name he submitted the required documents i.e. new RC, ID policy, driving license along with request to change the policy in the name of the complainant on 19.7.2017 and 20.7.2017 through email which was received by the OPs. It is further averred that since the previous owner had purchased the policy online, as such the complainant submitted all the documents to the Ops for transfer of the policy online only.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 12.8.2017 when he was coming from Dehradoon to Sangrur and when he reached near Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur, unfortunately a stray dog came before the vehicle and strongly hit with the front portion of the vehicle, as a result of which the car damaged badly.  The complainant made a phone call to the OP number 1 and on his direction the vehicle was sent to Krishan Auto Sales GT Road, Dhandari Kalan Ludhiana, where an amount of Rs.36,761/- was spent on the vehicle, but the claim was not settled, despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.36,761/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident  till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, it is stated that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs as the car in question was insured in the name of one Atul Nagpal for the period from 31.3.2017 to 30.3.2018 for Rs.7,31,595/-. It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the OPs for transfer of the insurance policy of the car in his name.   However, it is admitted that the complainant on 14.8.2017 submitted an intimation regarding accident of the car in question and as such Shri Vikas Gupta Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.34,433/- vide his report dated 13.9.2017. It is further averred that after receipt of the policy transfer fee of Rs.200/- on 5.9.2017, the OPs made an endorsement of transfer on 5.9.2017. It is stated further that since the policy had not been transferred in the name of the complainant, the Ops did not have any privity of contract with the complainant, as such the OPs are not liable to pay any claim. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP1/5 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the previous owner Shri Atul Nagpal got insured his car bearing registration number PB-22-M-8788  from the OPs for the period from 31.3.2017 to 30.3.2018 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-5 on record and thereafter the complainant purchased the car in question from Shri Atul Nagpal, which was subsequently got transferred by the complainant in his name.  It is also not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 12.8.2017 near Sangrur and the complainant gave intimation to the OPs about the accident and accordingly the Ops deputed the surveyor, who submitted his report assessing the claim to the tune of Rs.34,433/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest as the registration certificate was not in his name at the time of accident and the same was in the name of previous owner of the car, as such the complainant has sought for payment of the claim amount.  To support his contention, the complainant has relied upon Rule 144 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, wherein it is stated that the ownership of a motor vehicle covered by a valid insurance certificate is transferred to another person together with the policy of the insurance relating thereto the policy of insurance of such vehicle shall automatically stand transferred to that other person from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the said person shall within fourteen days of the date of transfer intimate to the authorised insurer who has insured the vehicle, the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy, so that the authorised insurer may make the necessary changes in his record.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that though third party claim is permissible in such a case, but the complainant cannot claim personal damage to the vehicle from the insurer because that part of insurance is not compulsory and remains personal to the person insured.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited a ruling of the Apex Court of India pronounced in Rikhi Ram and another versus Smt. Sukhrania and others 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 756 .  Further the same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Baldev Singh and another 2015 ACJ 1703.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant being not payable as the complainant did not get the policy transferred in his name in view of section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it is mentioned that “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”.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 23, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member