Haryana

Kurukshetra

107/2018

Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IffcoTokio - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kaushik

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.107 of 2018.

Date of inst. 14.05.2018. 

                                                                      Date of Decision: 24.09.2019.

 

Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Prem Nath, r/o village Bhainsi Majra, Post Office Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO House, III Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (Associated with Peerless General Company), Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager Samir Kapoor.

        ………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.     

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                   

 

Present:     Shri Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.         

Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ramesh Kumar against IFFCO Tokio, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Saloon Car bearing Registration No.HR-08S-8478 from Satpal s/o Shri Deep Chand, r/o village and Post Office Karora, Distt. Kaithal. The said vehicle was fully insured with the OP from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017. After purchase of said vehicle, he applied for the transfer of insurance in his name, but the officials of insurance company asked him that until and unless the registration of the vehicle is transferred by him, till then the insurance is not transferrable. Thereafter, he had applied for the transfer of vehicle in his own name and ultimately, the vehicle was transferred in his name on 01.08.2016 and as per version of the company, from 01.08.2016, he was having 14 days time to transfer the insurance in his name. But on 03.08.2016 at about 12:00 PM, when he alongwith Shishan Dutt was going to village Barna in that car, at that time, a running bull came in front of the car and to save the bull, the car struck in the wall of the shop and badly damaged. The information to the insurance company was given immediately without any delay. On receipt of information, the OP deputed its surveyor namely Kamaljeet Singh to verify the accident and to assess the damage/loss to the vehicle in question. On the asking of said Kamaljeet Singh, the car was repaired from Shivalik Motors, Behind Satya Nursing Home, near New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra and spent a sum of Rs.71,241/-. Thereafter, he lodged the claim with the OP by submitting all the claims papers including insurance policy, registration certificate and bills of repair etc., but in the month of October, 2016, he had received a letter dated 03.10.2016 regarding repudiation of his claim on the ground that insurance policy was not transferred within 14 days of the purchase of vehicle. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in providing the services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and the complaint is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that after intimation of the own damage claim lodged by the complainant, the OP deputed the IRDA licensed independent surveyor Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, who after survey submitted his report and as per report, final liability of OP comes to Rs.20,233/-. The said policy was obtained for insurable interest by Satpal s/o Shri Deep Chand, r/o village Karora, Distt. Kaithal. The complainant purchased the car from original owner on 18.07.2016 and car met with an accident on 03.08.2016, but policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant/transferee till the date of accident. Hence, there is no privity of contract exists with the complainant on the date of accident/loss. As per GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, in the case of package insurance policy, the transfer of Own Damage section of the policy in favour of transferee shall be done by the insurance company only one specific request in writing is made by the transferee of vehicle. The complainant had not approached to the OP for transfer of insurance policy in his name till the date of accident. As per terms and conditions of the policy and settled law of land, OP is not liable to pay the claim, so the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 03.10.2016. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The rest of the allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed dismissal the same with heavy costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a Car from one Satpal, which was fully insured with the OPs from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017. After purchase of said vehicle, the complainant applied for the transfer of insurance in his name, but on the asking of officials of insurance company, he applied for the transfer of vehicle in his own name and the vehicle was transferred in his name on 01.08.2016. He further argued that on 03.08.2016 at about 12:00 PM, the said vehicle was damaged in an accident. On receipt of information, the OPs deputed its surveyor namely Kamaljeet Singh and on his asking, the complainant repaired the car from Shivalik Motors and spent a sum of Rs.71,241/-. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs by submitting all the claims papers, but they illegally repudiated his claim. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the cases titled as Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (SC), Civil appeal No.21552 of 2017, date of decision 08.12.2017 and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahipal & Anr., Revision Petition No.2172 of 2016 (NC).

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that after intimation of alleged damage, the OP deputed the IRDA licensed independent surveyor Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, who after survey submitted his report and as per report, final liability of OP comes to Rs.20,233/-. He further argued that the complainant purchased the car from original owner on 18.07.2016 and car met with an accident on 03.08.2016, but policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant/transferee till the date of accident. Hence, there is no privity of contract exists with the complainant on the date of accident/loss, so the claim has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 03.10.2016. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the cases titled M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2131 of 1994, d.o.d. 21.11.1995 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Revision Petition No.3110 of 2014, d.o.d. 17.11.2015 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Vs. Jagpal Singh, Revision Petition No.2454 of 2009, d.o.d. 08.05.2015 (NC).

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased Maruti Ritz VDI BS IV bearing Registration No.HR-08S-8478 from Satpal alongwith Insurance Policy of OPs under Policy bearing No.97107090 valid from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017 (Ex.C1). It is also not disputed that the said car was met with an accident on 03.08.2016. The grievance of the complainant is that on the directions of OPs, he got repaired the car in question and spent Rs.71,241/- and submitted his claim with the OPs, who wrongly rejected his claim vide letter dated 03.10.2016 on the ground that “Insured Sat Pal purchased the vehicle on 18.07.2016 and it met with an accident on 03.08.2016, but the policy is not transferred within 14 days of purchased of date. Hence there is no insurable interest exists as on the day of accident”. To support his contention, the complainant produced copy of RC as Ex.C-5 showing that the car in question was transferred in his name on 01.08.2016 well before the accident in question i.e. on 03.08.2016. It is well proved on the file that at the day of accident i.e. on 03.08.2016, the said car was transferred from to Sat Pal to Ramesh Kumar (complainant). As per Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner. Accordingly, instant policy benefits will also be automatically transferred from Sat Pal to Ramesh Kumar (complainant). In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as Mallamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Vol.CLXXV (2014-3), The Punjab Law Report, Page No.813 (SC), wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Section 157 (1) – Whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner. According to Registration Certificate (Ex.C-5), the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Ramesh Kumar (complainant) from Sat Pal on 01.08.2016. So, there is an admitted transfer of ownership of the car of the complainant. As per Section 157 of MV Act, once an ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred to Ramesh Kumar (complainant), the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner, as it is the vehicle which is insured with the company and not the owner. Moreover, the car in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 01.08.2016 and the accident of the said car was occurred on 03.08.2016 i.e. within a gap of two days from the transfer of the said car in the name of the complainant. So the contention of the OPs that the vehicle in question has not been transferred in the name of the complainant within 14 days, has no force. The case laws produced by the OPs are not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the OPs, being rested on different footings. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability on the ground that the original owner has not transferred the insurance policy after the transfer of the ownership. Therefore, OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

9.             Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification. In his complaint, the complainant has alleged that he repaired the car from Shivalik Motors and spent a sum of Rs.71,241/- and produced copy of Estimate/Quotation of said Workshop, on the case file as Ex.C-2, but perusal of said Estimate/Quotation, it is found that said Estimate/Quotation does not bear any seal/stamp or the signature of any authorized person of said Workshop and without which, the same cannot be considered to be genuine one. However, the OPs has deputed a surveyor namely Kamaljeet Singh was and according to the report of surveyor Ex.R-1, he has assessed the net loss amounting to the tune of Rs.20,233/-. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,233/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant. 

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,233/- ‘as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation charges, to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:24.09.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.