JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background in brief is that the Complainant insured his vehicle, a Chevrolet Beat with registration no. HR-06AB-4041, with the Petitioner under Policy No. 88285403, with an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 4,35,000/-. The policy was effective from 11.07.2014 to 10.07.2015. On 29.10.2014, the Complainant drove the vehicle to visit his friend, Amit Kumar, in Panipat, and parked it outside Amit's house intending to stay overnight. However, to his dismay, the vehicle was discovered missing the following morning from the parking spot. On seeking assistance from the Police at PS Model Town Panipat, the Complainant was advised to search for the vehicle himself. Failing to locate it, he lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 02.11.2014. Subsequently, the Complainant informed the Petitioner about the theft and submitted all the relevant documents, excluding the untraced report initially. The Petitioner also obtained the Complainant's signature on some blank papers. Although the untraced report was later furnished to the Petitioner, the claim remained unprocessed for an extended period. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 27.08.2015 to the Petitioner, which went unanswered. Aggrieved by the Petitioner's failure to disburse the claim amount, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Panipat.

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 01.06.2017 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant the sum assured under the Insurance along with Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and litigation costs. The Petitioner filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission which, vide the impugned Order dated 18.09.2017, dismissed the same and upheld the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – 

“3. The Insurance Company has only relied upon the statement of Amit Nagpal (photocopy) purported to have been recorded by the Surveyor. The Insurance Company did not examine the Surveyor before the District Forum, who recorded the statement of Amit Nagpal, so, the statement of Amit Nagpal cannot be relied upon. It is not in dispute that the car was insured with the Insurance Company. The Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy were in the name of the complainant. The Insurance Company cannot deprive any benefit, out of the aforesaid statement, that too a photocopy. The Insurance Company was under obligation to indemnify the loss of car to the complainant as it was insured in his name. The complainant had privity of contract with the Insurance Company at the time of incident. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company take such pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed...”

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that that according to the terms and conditions outlined in the vehicle insurance policy, specifically under the 'CONDITIONS' at point no. 2, only the Insured individual themselves are authorized to file a claim. It has been argued that this condition was well-known to the Complainant, and despite being aware of it, the claim was filed by Amit Nagpal on behalf of the Insured; That there was an unexplained delay of 2 days in both lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and intimating the Petitioner about the theft. This delay is significant and raises questions about the credibility and validity of the claim; That there was no insurable right of the Complainant at the time of the incident, as the ownership of the vehicle had been transferred prior to the occurrence. Therefore, the claim filed by the Complainant lacks legal merit and should be dismissed accordingly.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that that the Petitioner has failed to provide any official document issued by the Government indicating that the ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to Amit Nagpal, as the Registration Certificate remains in the name of the Respondent, indicating continuous ownership by him; That the document purportedly issued by Amit Nagpal claiming ownership of the vehicle lacks credibility as it is neither an affidavit nor notarized, thus lacking evidentiary value; That regarding the timing of filing the FIR, it is argued that a delay of less than 48 hours does not invalidate the claim of the Respondent; That although the insurance claim bears the signature of Amit Nagpal, it was filed in the name of the insured. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot utilize a hyper-technical excuse to avoid liability.

6. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company has submitted that the repudiation was correct since ownership of the Insured vehicle had already been passed on by the Complainant to one Amit Nagpal for consideration as found by the Investigator, whose Affidavit is on record as Annexure-P10, and the Statement of Amit Nagpal which was recorded by him is also on record as Annexure-P9.  Ld. Counsel has also drawn attention to Annexure-P7 which happens to be the Insurance Claim Form submitted after theft of the vehicle, and highlighted that it has been signed by one “Amit” which would suggest that the Claimant was actually the said “Amit Nagpal” and not the Complainant/Insured-Jaivinder Singh himself.

8. Be that as it may, even assuming that the vehicle in question had been made over by the Complainant to the said Amit Nagpal for valuable consideration, still the Complainant continued to remain its registered owner and the Insurance Company could not avoid its liability till such time as the Insurer, in view of a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020- Surendra Kumar Bhilawe  Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited”; which was preferred by the Insured against an Order of this Commission dismissing his complaint in very similar circumstances.  The relevant extracts of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court are set out as below –

“53. In our considered opinion, the National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the National Commission ignoring vital admitted facts as stated above, including registration of the said truck being the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of ‘No Objection’ from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking the definition of owner in Section 2(3)) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance under Section 157.

54. In view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari”.

9. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court was subsequently relied upon by this Commission in “Jaspal Singh  Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, F.A.No. 379 of 2015” and the claim of the Complainant was allowed.  The relevant extracts from the aforesaid decision are set out as below-

“21. We have examined the documents and scrutinized the terms thereof, where the intention to transfer the vehicle in favour of Sh. Harjashan Preet Singh was clearly contingent upon the payments stipulated therein to the financer and thereafter the Complainant had to execute the transfer documents. This never took place and therefore in the absence of any such evidence of lawful or actual transfer of the vehicle, the conclusion drawn either by the surveyor, or in the letter of repudiation or even by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are all erroneous.  Transfer cannot be presumed or assumed on the basis of certain circumstances of the involvement of Shri Harjashan Preet Singh in lodging the police complaint or even  otherwise making a small payment of a paltry amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  In the given circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Surveyor, the Insurance Co. or the State Commission on the basis of general principles of Transfer of Property Act are not acceptable, more so keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Surender Kumar Bhilava Bhilawae (Supra).”

10. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, on account of which this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent Orders of both the Ld. Fora below. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.