Delhi

East Delhi

CC/977/2014

PANKAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIBERTY GEN.INS - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 977/14

 

Shri Pankaj Kumar

S/o Shri Phool Kumar

Village Lakhuwas, Tehsil-Sohna

District Gurgaon, Haryana                                                          ….Complainant

 

Vs.

1. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors

10^th Floor, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza

Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,

New Delhi – 110 034.

 

2. M/s. Magma Fincorp Limited.

Through its Directors

477, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-2

Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,

New Delhi – 110 034.                                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.10.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 21.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 16.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint pertains to allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services by the complainant Shri Pankaj Kumar against Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Magma Fincorp Limited (OP-2).

2.        The brief facts are that the complainant had purchased TATA Safari, HR26B U0492 in June 2013 from its registered owner,                 Shri Devender Bedi.  The said vehicle was insured with OP-1 vide policy no. 20000011972 with Rs. 9,53,000/- as IDV.  The cover was for a period from 16.06.2013 to 15.06.2014.  It was stated that the complainant was informed by the executive of OP-1, that the insurance could be transferred only after the transfer of ownership of the vehicle.  The said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 12.07.2013.  On 18.07.2013, the complainant applied to OP-1 for transfer of policy in his name.  It was further stated that the vehicle met with an accident on 11.11.2013, however, matter was not reported to police as there was no fatal injury.

            Claim No. 200101-2011-13-1-100832-01 was lodged with the OP, thereafter surveyor was appointed, who assessed the estimated repairs to be Rs. 6,70,000/-.  All the required documents were supplied to the surveyor.  It was further stated that the vehicle was financed by OP-2, who started demanding repayment of loan vide letter dated 20.03.2014. 

            Finally, on 19.05.2014, the claim was repudiated by OP-1 with the reason that there was no contract of insurance between the complainant and OP-1.  Hence, this complaint praying for directions to OP-1 to pay  Rs. 9,53,000/- alongwith 18% interest from 11.11.2013, Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses and further to direct OP-2, not to press for repayment of loan till the payment by OP-1.

3.        Notice of the complaint was served on OPs.  OP-1 in their reply took the plea that there was no contract of insurance between OP-1 and the complainant, as the policy was in the name of previous owner,       Shri Devender Bedi and the complainant had not complied with the provisions as per GR-17 of India Motor Tariff.  It was further stated that a fresh proposal form, registration certificate, transfer fees of Rs. 50/- were submitted by the complainant, but consent of insured, difference of no claim bonus benefit and original certificate of insurance were not submitted by the complainant, despite several letters written by the surveyor.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied. 

OP-2’s right to file written statement was closed.

4.        Rejoinder to written statement of OP-1 was filed by complainant, where all the submissions of OP-1 were denied and contents of complaint were reiterated.  It was stated that OP-1 had not demanded consent letter of previous owner for transfer of policy.

5.        Evidence was filed by the complainant, who deposed on affidavit the contents of the complaint.  Reliance was placed on the copy of insurance policy (Annex.-A),    registration certificate dated 12.07.2013 in the name of complainant (Annex.-B), application by the complainant to OP-1 dated 18.07.2013 (Annex.-C), repair estimate (Annex.-D), letter dated 20.03.2014, issued by OP-2 demanding repayment of loan (Annex.-E) and claim repudiation letter dated 14.05.2014 (Annex.-F).

            Shri Jitendra Jain, Chief Litigation Manager of OP-1 deposed on affidavit, wherein the contents of reply were reproduced.  Reliance was placed on the policy bond alongwith terms and conditions.  Surveyor report assessing the loss as Rs. 6,10,840.98. 

            Shri Lalit Kumar, AR of OP-2 was examined on behalf of OP-2, who deposed that OP-2 was wrongfully impleaded and no deficiency in services can be attributed to them and they were legally entitled to recover the loan amount. 

6.        We have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1.  The complainant has placed on record the registration certificate dated 12.07.2013, where he had purchased the said vehicle in June 2013, the complainant applied for transfer of policy on 18.07.2013.  As per India Motor Tariff Regulations, General Regulation (GR)-17, the application was to be made to insurer for the transfer of policy within 14 days of purchase of vehicle.  The complainant had purchased vehicle in June 2013, he was required to inform the insurance company within 14 days from the date of transfer, which the complainant had failed to do.

            In Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sombir RP No. 3216 of 2015, NCDRC, it was held that under the provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, the relevant date for making application to the insurer for the transfer of insurance policy was the date of actual transfer of the vehicle and not the date on which the change of name in the registration book was recorded by the concerned transport authority.  As the complainant had failed to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer, OP-1 had rightly repudiated the claim as there existed no insurance contract between the complainant and OP-1.

            As far as the prayer for directions to OP-2 not to press for repayment of loan till the payment by OP-1 is concerned, that cannot be directed as it is a contract between the complainant and OP-2 and OP-2 cannot be directed to forgo his right what is legally enforceable by him.

            Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Managing Director, KSRTC vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., CA No. 5293 of 2010, Supreme Court, the facts of the said judgement are different from the present case, in the said judgement, the insured vehicle was hired by the KSRTC from the owner.  As far as Section 157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is concerned, which states that the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of a person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer is concerning the third party insurance. 

            In the instant case, it was observed that the insurer cannot escape the liability to indemnify as in the hiring of vehicle intimation was not required to be given.  It was only in case of complete transfer of the vehicle when change of registration particulars are required under Section 157 of the Act, an intimation has to be given by the transferee for effecting necessary changes in the policy.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed as it is devoid of merits without any orders to cost.       

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                        Member 

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President