Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/763/2011

Angrej Singh S/o Chuhar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.C.Jindal

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No. 763  of 2011.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 21.07.2011

                                                                                                Date of decision:  24.08.2016

 

Angrej Singh aged about 37 years son of Sh. Chuhar Singh, resident of village Chholi, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 652^nd & 3^rd Floor, Near Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager.        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Respondent

 

BEFORE:  SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER        

 

Present: Sh. S.C.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

           

ORDER

1.                          The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased Maruti Car Alto bearing registration No. HR-02N-6676 which was comprehensively insured with OP Insurance  Company for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- vide its cover note No. 41102710 valid from 11.04.2010 to 10.04.2011 in the name of Malkeet Singh son of Sh. Maru Ram (Copy of cover note is Annexure C-1). The said car in question met with an accident on 07.02.2011 due to tyre burst when one Kuldeep Singh was driving and badly damaged. The police report was also lodged vide DDR bearing No. 17-A dated 13.02.2011 in the police station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. A claim was also lodged with the OP Insurance Company who appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant submitted the estimate of loss, registration certificate of the vehicle, police report and driving license of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In this way, the complainant completed all the formalities in order to get the early settlement of his claim but the OP Insurance Company failed to settle the claim within the stipulated period of 3 months as required under the law which constitute deficiency in service. Lastly prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on account of damages to the car in question alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service; complainant has no locus standi; there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP Insurance Company. In the present case an intimation was received by the OP Insurance company that one Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-02N-6676 was met with an accident on 07.02.2011. On receipt of the said information Sh. M.L.Garg an independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to conduct the survey of the damaged car on 17.02.2011 who submitted his report dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure R-2) after assessing the loss applying relevant depreciation clause to the tune of Rs. 26135/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On receipt of the surveyor report, the claim in question was further processed by OP Insurance Company and on the basis of available documents on the file; it was found that vehicle in question was insured in the name of one Malkeet Singh son of Maru Ram, resident of village Sherpur w.e.f. 11.04.2010 to 10.04.2011. However, registration certificate was found to be in the name of Sh. Angrej Singh son of Sh. Chohar Singh, resident of village Chholi i.e. complainant, meaning thereby that on the date of alleged accident insured Malkeet Singh had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question as he has already sold the same to one Angrej Singh with whom the Op Insurance company has no privity of contract. The insured Malkeet Singh did not give any intimation regarding transfer of vehicle and also did not apply to the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy in the name of Angrej Singh which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of Indian Motor Tariff and insurance policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide its registered letter dated 19.09.2011 and on merit controverted the plea taken by the complainant in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents such as insurance cover note as Annexure C-1, copy of RC as Annexure C-2, copy of DDR as Annexure C-3, copy of repair bills as Annexure C-4 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. M.L.Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Pallavi Roy, Vice President of OP Insurance Company as RW/B and photo copies of documents such as repudiation letter dated 19.09.2011 as Annexure R-1, Surveyor report dated 30.04.2011 as Annexure R-2, copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                   The only plea of the complainant is that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company on the flimsy ground that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP Insurance Company as on the date of alleged accident the insurance policy stands in the name of previous owner Manjeet Singh whereas the car in question stands in the name of complainant Angrej Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as Shri Narayan Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ Page 289 National Commission, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Om Parkash Gupta & Another, 2009(2) CLT Page 303 National Commission, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Cap. Ajay Singh Yadav & Another, 2008 (2) CPC page 296 National Commission, Ajimuddin Versus The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006(2) CPR page 124 Chattisgarh State Commission and National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Subhash Chand Kataria & Another, 2008(II) CPJ Page 324 National Commission. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company hotly argued at length that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company and draw our attentions towards the insurance policy Annexure R-3/ C-1 which stands in the name of previous owner Manjeet Singh and also draw our attention towards the registration certificate (Annexure C-2) which stands in the name of complainant Angrej Singh w.e.f. 18.01.2011. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company further draw our attention towards the copy of DDR (Annexure C-3) and argued that even in the said DDR lodged with the police station Chhachhrauli it is clearly evident that even on the date of alleged accident one Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh who lodged the DDR was the owner in possession of the car in question as he has specifically mentioned in his statement given to the police that when he is going in his own car bearing registration No. HR-02N-6676 Marka Alto then the tyre of car burst and due to that car turned turtle in the pitches side by of the road. Hence, at the time of alleged accident, complainant Angrej Singh was not having any insurable interest in the car in question, so, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the Op Insurance Company and referred the Motor Tariff Guidelines specifically GR No.17 as well as case law titled as New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Chandrakant Bhujangi Jogdand, Revision Petition No. 4387 of 2009, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sri V.C. Deenadayal etc. Revision Petition No. 426 of 2007 decided on 13.03.2009 and M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. 1996(1) PLR page No.202 Supreme Court.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. From the perusal of insurance policy Annexure R-3/C-1, it is clearly evident that one Malkeet Singh son of Maru Ram is the insured person in respect of Maruti Car bearing No.HR02N-6676 whereas from the perusal of registration certificate Annexure C-2, it is evident that it stands in the name of Angrej Singh son of Chohar Singh w.e.f. 18.01.2011. It is not the case of the complainant that he has ever applied to the OP Insurance Company to transfer the insurance policy in question in his name till the alleged date of accident i.e. 07.02.2011. Further, from the perusal of DDR Annexure C-3, it is also clearly evident that another third person Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh was in possession of the vehicle in question as he has specifically mentioned in his statement given to the police (DDR No.17 (A) dated 13.02.2011) that when he was going in his car then it met with an accident. The said Kuldeep Singh has nowhere mentioned in the said report/DDR that he was driving the car in question as a relative of the complainant i.e. Angrej Singh. Although the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that his one relative was driving the car at the time of alleged accident but no such affidavit has been placed on file by the complainant in support of his version that the said Kuldeep Singh, who lodged the DDR, was his relative. We have perused the case law referred by the complainant and GR No.10 of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the case law referred by the counsel for the OP and GR No.17. In the case law titled as New India Insurance Company versus Chandrakant Bhujangi (supra),  the difference between GR-10 and GR-17 has been duly discussed by the Hon’ble National Commission, even the case law referred by the complainant titled as Shri Narayan Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. has also been discussed mentioning therein that the said judgment cannot be applied to the changed senerio relating to transfer under General Regulation GR No.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act which came into existence from 01.07.2002. Further, it has been held that regarding the scope of section 157 Vis-à-vis insurance liability as against third party and own damage, the apex court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1996(1) SCC page 221 has laid down that the deemed transfer under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle 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. The same view has been held in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sri V.C.Deenadayal (supra) wherein it has been held that in order to avail the benefits under the policy, there has to be a contract between the parties and defacto possession of the vehicle will not confer any legal right on the complainant to avail the benefits under the policy.

10.                   In the present case, it is clearly evident that insurance policy stands in the name of previous owner one Malkeet Singh son of Maru Ram whereas registration certificate stands in the name of complainant Angrej Singh and further in the DDR one another person namely Kuldeep Singh is claiming himself as owner in possession of the vehicle in question. We are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the Op Insurance Company and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable. The case law referred by counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the law referred by the counsel for the OP Insurance Company is fully applicable in the present case.

11.                   Resultantly, 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: 24.08.2016.

 

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER