Punjab

StateCommission

A/400/2017

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagdeep Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Aggarwal

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.400 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution : 30.05.2017

                                                          Order reserved on: 08.09.2017

                                                          Date of Decision  :  11.09.2017

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai and Surya Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana and 5^th Floor, Tower-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector 62, Noida-201301 through Pankaj Kumar Manager-Legal.

......Appellant/Opposite Parties No.1&2

Versus

1. Jagdeep Singh, son of Amrik Singh, resident of Village Chak Sikandar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. 

…….Respondent/Complainant

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Plot No.39, The Mall, Amritsar through its Branch Manager. 

…… Respondent/opposite party No.3

 

Appeal against order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

           Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                      : Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate

For respondent No.1      : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

For respondent No.2      : Ex-parte

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER :-

          Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 30.03.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar, directing appellant and respondent No.2 of this appeal to pay respondent No.1 of this appeal Jagdeep Singh an amount of Rs.2,47,000/-, as claim amount along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which they shall pay interest @ 6%PA from the date of order till realization.  Appellant of this appeal is opposite party No.1 in the complaint and respondent No.1 of this appeal is complainant therein and respondent No.2 in this appeal is opposite party No.3 therein and they be referred, as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience. 

2.                Complainant  filed the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 'Act') against OPs on the averments that previously Gurinder SIngh was  owner of vehicle i-20  make Hyundai bearing registration No.PB-02-AA-0063, which was insured with OP No.2, vide policy No.2311200685593001000 valid from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016 and it was hypothecated with OP No.3.  Gurinder Singh sold the car in question to complainant and OP No.3 assured that they would transfer the said car in his name. On 19.12.2015, OP No.3 received the registration certificate of vehicle in question from the office of Regional Transport Officer and the same was handed over to complainant on 24.12.2015. Unfortunately, the car met with an accident on 27.12.2015 and he informed about the said accident to OP No.2 on 28.12.2015 and thereafter, the surveyor assessed the claim amount to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs.2,02,000/-.   But he was astonished to find that previous owner Gurinder Singh received a letter dated 21.3.2016 from OP No.1 and 2 regarding repudiation of claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  The registration certificate of the vehicle was got transferred on 19.12.2015 and same was handed-over to complainant on 24.12.2015 and accident occurred on 27.12.2015 within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle.  No negligence is there on the part of the complainant.  The OPs failed to settle his claim. Hence, he filed the complaint before District Forum seeking following directions  against  OPs:-

a)       to pay Rs.2,47,000/- as settlement amount;

b)      to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

3.                Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 filed joint written reply, raising preliminary objections that complainant has not approached the District Consumer Forum with clean hands. He admitted the fact that registration certificate of the vehicle in question was transferred on 24.12.2015, but the insurance policy was not transferred in his name even on the date of accident.  The insurance policy was in the name of Gurinder Singh, who was insured under policy in question, so due to violation and non-compliance of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff (IMT) and section 50 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the claim was rightly repudiated by them.  It should have been got transferred within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle.  Neither any application was received with the consent of insured nor any fee was deposited for effecting transfer of insurance policy in his favour.  On merits, all the preliminary objections were reiterated and other allegations made in the complaint were denied by OPs.   The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply, raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not legally maintainable, as complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands and is not entitled to any claim. On merits, it is pleaded that answering OP has no concern with the insurance policy, which was purchased by Gurinder Singh from OP Nos.1 and 2.  Complainant has taken the car on loan from it  and  as per  policy  “HDFC Bank Transfer of RC” and entry of hypothecation papers with respect to loan, it was to be got transferred through empanelled RTO agent of bank in the District Transport Office.  Transferred registration certificate of the vehicle in question was received on 19.12.2015 and the same was handed over to complainant on 24.12.2015. It is duty of complainant to get the insurance policy transferred in his name by submitting the requisite documents, as required by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the purpose of transfer of insurance policy and replying OP No.3 has no concern with the insurance policy, which was availed of by previous owner Gurinder Singh. The policy in question related to OP Nos.1 and 2 and the previous owner of the vehicle only, who paid the premium of same to OP Nos.1 and 2.  Other allegations raised in complaint were denied by OP No.3 it  prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.  As against it, OP No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Manager-Legal Claims and Authorized Signatory of OP as Ex.OP1,2/1 along with documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/6 and closed the evidence and OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Stefan Bangar, Assistant Manager Legal of OP No.3 as Ex.OP-3/1 along with copy of letter as Ex.OP-3/2 and closed the evidence.   On conclusion of evidence and arguments, District Forum Amritsar, directed OP Nos.1&2 to pay Rs.2,47,000/- as claim amount along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to complainant failing which they shall pay interest @ 6%PA from the date of order till realization.  Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Amritsar, opposite parties No.1&2 now appellants filed the above appeal before this Commission.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.  It is  specific plea of OP that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the accident, as he failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his favour within the prescribed period required under GR-17 Indian Motor Tariff, in spite of the fact that the ownership thereof had been transferred in his name.  In order to make the insurance company liable, the complainant was required to get the insurance policy transferred in his name within the prescribed period of 14 days as per GR-17 (sic) and the claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company on that score.  On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submitted that GR-17 not applicable in this case, as accident occurred within 14 days period from the date of sale of vehicle.   Now the point for consideration is whether GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff is applicable in this case or not?  The vehicle was purchased by the complainant from Gurinder Singh and insurance policy of the vehicle is proved on record as Ex.C-1. This policy is valid from 06.02.2015 to 05.02.2016 and has been obtained by the previous owner, Sh.  Gurinder Singh in his name from OP Nos.1&2.

7.                No doubt, as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Policy of the vehicle is deemed to have been transferred in the name of transferee of the vehicle, but the provisions of that Section are applicable only in third party cases in Motor Accident Tribunals Claim cases only. After framing of G.R-17 of Indian Motor Tariff, there is no automatic transfer of the Insurance Policy in own damage case and the purchaser of the vehicle is required to apply for the transfer of insurance policy in his name after the transfer of the vehicle in his name, within 14 days period from the date of sale of the vehicle.

8.               In the present case, vide letter dated 18.1.2016 ExC2 OP No 3 informed to complainant that registration certificate of the vehicle was received on 19.12.2015 by its agent  and same was handed over to complainant on 24.12.2015. The complainant   has to apply for the transfer of insurance policy within 14 days   from the date of transfer i.e. up to 02.01.2016, as per above GR-17.  But, the accident occurred on 27.12.2015 within mandated period of above 14 days.   Had the accident taken place on 02.01.2016 i.e. after 14 days from the date of transfer, then factual position would have been different, if the complainant had not applied for the transfer of the insurance. In this case, above period of 14 days has not lapsed as such his claim was illegally repudiated by the OP Nos.1&2.  Moreover, this view has also been taken by this Commission in F.A. No1366 of 2004.

9.   In view of our above discussion, the appeal of OP now appellant is hereby dismissed by affirming order of District Forum Amritsar.   

10.              The Appellant/OP had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal and Rs 1,75,000 deposited on 23.06.2017 in compliance of order of this commission dated  7.6.2017. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.  

10.        Argument in this appeal was heard on 08.9.2017 and order was reserved.  Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.  

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                                  (Surinder Pal Kaur)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

 September 11, 2017                                                          

DB