CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.14/2016
SH. ANIL KUMAR,
S/o SH. HARI SHANKAR,
R/o K-181, BLOCK K,
SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI.
ALSO AT:
E-7A/457A, SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/s MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd.
(THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT CLAIMS/ AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE)
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
24, PARK STREET,
KOLKATA 7000016.
ALSO OFFICE AT:
F-04, FIRST FLOOR,
OKHLA INDISTRIAL AREA, PHASE- 1,
NEW DELHI- 110020. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Date of Institution-11.01.2016
Date of Order- 30.08.2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA - PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.7,74, 014/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of the filing of complaint till its realization and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and agony and costs.
- It is the case of the complainant he is the registered owner of the commercial vehicle(truck) bearing registration number DL1GB7806 of make M/s Eicher Motors Ltd., model number 2012 bearing engine no. E 483 CDC 564427, Chassis number MC226 COC B064762 (Exhibit CW1/A). The said vehicle was financed by the sister concern of the OP namely M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. Thereafter, the complainant was induced by M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. to take the insurance policy with their other division i.e. the present OP. The complainant got his vehicle insured with the OP with the policy number P00154 00002/4103/127578 which was effective from 27.02.2015 to midnight of 26.02.2016 (Exhibit CW 1/C).
- It is stated by the complainant that under an arrangement, the said vehicle was given to Shri Krishan Pal Tyagi on 25.02.2013 who acted as his agent to run the vehicle. It is further stated that the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 01.05.2015 and accordingly one MV theft e-FIR No. 000695 dated 01.05.2015 u/s 379 IPC, PS District Crime Branch New Delhi was registered. The police has filed final untraced report in the said FIR. The said FIR is Ex.CW1/D and the order of the untraced report dated 27.06.2015 is Ex. CW1/E.
- It is further stated by the complainant that he filed the insurance claim with the OP but to his utter surprise, the OP vide letter dated 10.09.2014 signed on 19.09.2015 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant sold the vehicle to Mr. Krishan Pal Tyagi as per the sale document dated 25.02.2013. Since the complainant was no more the owner of the insured vehicle therefore, he had no insurable interest. The alleged sale document i.e affidavit of the complainant and affidavit of Shri Krishan Pal Tyagi are Ex. RW-3 and RW-4 respectively. Copy of statement of Jitesh and copy of statement of Kaushal are Exhibit RW-5 and RW-6 respectively.
- It is further stated by the complainant that on one hand, the OP has rejected the insurance claim of the complainant but on the other hand, the
sister concern of the OP namely M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. before the arbitrator appointed by it, has filed a case for recovery of dues against the complainant and has obtained ex parte award. It is stated by the complainant that this rejection of the claim by the OP has caused grave mental agony and hardship to him and his family.
- It is stated by the complainant that he has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that as per the decisions pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the owner of the vehicle means the registered owner on the records of the RTO for the purposes of MV Act and any sale between the registered owner and any other person is of no consequence unless the said sale is not valid in the eyes of law and unless the name of the transferee is registered in the record of the RTO in the place of the transferor i.e the registered owner. Any person who is using the vehicle does not require it to insure the vehicle separately.
- It is further stated by the complainant that the vehicle cannot be validly sold to any person without obtaining NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the financer and in this case NOC has not been obtained from the OP and the vehicle stands in the name of the complainant, therefore the OP is liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant along with compensation.
- Per contra, the OP in its reply, has taken preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable as the complaint has not disclosed true and correct facts. The factor of policy as well as the vehicle being stolen and FIR has not been denied by the OP, however the contents of the FIR state as under:
“it is submitted that I Krishan Pal Tyagi…… was sleeping in the said vehicle and around 2:00 AM hi devoted from vehicle and sleep away in the morning at 6:00 AM he checked the said vehicle it was not there. I enquired on my behalf but no clue unknown person theft my vehicle so please registered my complaint and take action thank you”
- It is further stated by the OP, that upon intimation of the claim of officials of the OP an investigator, Mr Sunil Jain prepared a detailed report and obtained certain documents from the insured as well as the purchaser of the vehicle such as affidavits of sale and purchase statement of driver Jitesh Kumar Pathak, helper Kaushal and current owner of the vehicle Mr. Krishan Pal Tyagi. It is stated that from the perusal of documents mentioned, it can be clearly ascertained and that the vehicle was purchased by Mr. Krishan Pal Tyagi as stated in FIR which is the basis of the entire claim.
- It is also stated that the facts stand corroborated by the statement of the driver, Jitesh Kumar Pathak and helper Kaushal obtained by the investigator of the OP during the investigation. These chain of events demonstrate that the vehicle was sold by the complainant and he was not in possession of the same and in connivance with the current owner Krishan Pal Tyagi, the complainant has filed the complaint to obtain compensation in respect of theft of vehicle which has already been sold by the complaint and therefore, he no longer enjoys the insurable interest in the said vehicle.
- It is also clear that the current owner Krishan Pal Tyagi did not get the vehicle transferred in his name just to avoid paying transfer charges and taxes applicable, thereby causing loss to the exchequer.
- It is further stated that M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. obtaining an exparte award from the learned arbitrator for recovery of dues has nothing to do with the present complaint.
- The OP has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in Jaspreet Singh versus ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. wherein it was held that the person approaching the Court and seeking relief must come to the court with clean hands. It has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fakir Chand Gulati versus Uppal Agencies Ltd. & United India Insurance versus Harchandrai Chandan Lal wherein it has been held terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties….. and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into contract of insurance with their eyes wide open they cannot rely on definition given in another enactment.
- OP has also stated that it will have to lead evidence and examine witnesses, bring expert evidence and therefore this Commission is not the appropriate Forum to decide cases which are complicated in nature under the summary jurisdiction.
- Both the parties have filed their respective reply, rejoinder, evidence, affidavits and written arguments. Having gone through the entire material on record, this Commission is of the view that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the sale document dated 25.02.2013, it is clear that the complainant had sold the truck to Shri Krishan Pal Tyagi and at the time of accident, the complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle. The issue of ‘insurable interest’ is covered squarely by the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in ‘New India Assurance Co vs K Kalvathi’ and therefore it is held that at the time when the vehicle met with the accident, no insurable interest existed between the complainant and the OP. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed without any order as to costs.
The file be consigned to the record room. The order be uploaded on the website.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
