Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/180/2022

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikash Mahla

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                                                   Complaint No.: 180 of 2022.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 21.07.2022.

                                                                   Date of Decision:  14.8.2024.

Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of VPO Bhagwi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri at present residing at F – 49, near Metro Pillar No. 432, Rattan Park, Nilothi, West Delhi-110041.

..….Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

1.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having its registered and policy issuing office at ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Manager.

2.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having servicing branch address: Tower D, Twelth Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurugram Road, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 through its Manager.

3.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, IRDA Reg. No. 115, mailing address: Interface Building No. 16, 601/602, 6^th Floor, New Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 through its authorized signatory/Manager

                                                                             …...Opposite Parties

 

                             COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Dharampal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Vikash Mehla, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri RK Verma, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:-

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a Creta car Registration No. DL8CAR-1115 from its registered owner Mr. Akash Khandelwal, resident of 2289, Gali No. 174, TRI Nagar Onkar Nagar, New Delhi -110035 and for the transfer of RC to his name he had sent all the I.D./documents to Delhi.  It is averred that in between the accident took place.  It is further averred that insurance of the vehicle in question was done by the OPs under policy No. 3001/217944259/00/B00 from 18.3.2021 to midnight of 17.3.2022.  It is further averred that now the vehicle is registered in the name of complainant, hence, he is consumer of OPs.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question met with an accident on dated 26.1.2022 due to sudden appearance of antelope on the road and the vehicle of complainant got damaged and complainant also sustained injuries.  It is further averred that the complainant took the vehicle to Safdarjang Motors Pvt. Limited, City-1, Plot No. 106P, Sector 37, Gurugram, the authorized service center of Hyundai by towing crane and paid Rs. 2000/- and receipt No. 270 dated 26.1.2022 was issued.  It is further averred that complainant has submitted the claim with the OPs alongwith all the documents and the claim No. MOT11852906, reference No. 190322273406 dated 19.3.2022 was generated by the OPs.  It is further averred that a surveyor was appointed by the OPs and the OPs have also assured that repair work of the vehicle will be started soon and the repairing estimate of the vehicle was also prepared.  It is further averred that after the visit of surveyor, the OPs have denied to disburse the estimated claim amount.  It is further averred that the OPs did not pass any order regarding claim besides repudiating just and valid claim.  It is further averred that a legal notice dated 19.5.2022 was got served upon the OPs, but the OPs have neither disburse the claim nor gave any reply of the notice.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs have filed their contested written statement alleging therein that Akash Khandelwal, R/o 2289, Gali No. 174, Tri Nagar, near Canara Bank, T.R.I., New Delhi, the registered owner of car No. DL-8CAR-1115 got insured his vehicle from 18.3.2021 to 17.3.2022 and the IDV was Rs. 9,00,000/-.  It is averred that the intimation with regard to alleged damage of the vehicle was received through complainant that vehicle was met with an accident on 26.1.2022 in the area of Dhansa Border, Nala Road, Delhi.  It is further averred that Sanjay Kumar Verma, one of the independent surveyor and loss assessor was deputed, who submitted his report dated 4.2.2022 and assessed the loss of Rs.1,83,077.36P.  It is further averred that the claim form was submitted by the insured.  It is further averred that after receiving the survey report, the OPs have deputed Ishant Kharbanda of Ambala, independent investigator to carry out investigation with regard to ownership of vehicle, who submitted his report.  It is further averred that during investigation Sanjeev Kumar has submitted an affidavit of sale of vehicle No. DL-8CAR-1115 and also made statement before said investigator to the effect that he had purchased insured vehicle from its registered owner and insured Akash Khandelwal on 13.12.2021 for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,75,000/-.  It is further averred that the complainant did not get the registration certificate and insurance policy transfer in his name and as such he has no concern whatsoever with the claim of the vehicle in question.  It is further averred that the complainant has no insurable interest unless and until the vehicle and insurance policy is transferred in his name.  It is further averred that insured Akash Khandelwal has also no insurable interest after sale of the vehicle to complainant.  It is further averred that after receiving the survey report and investigation report, the competent authority of the OPs after going through the papers and documents available on the file and after due application of mind has repudiated the claim on the ground “No Insurable interest (vehicle was sold and RC, insurance policy was not transferred till the date of loss) and the OPs have sent intimation in this regard to the complainant vide letter dated 19.3.2022.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C11 in evidence and closed the evidence on 18.1.2023.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs has placed on record duly sworn affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents as Annexure R1 to R8 and closed the evidence on 21.7.2023. 

5.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim and the complainant is entitled to get the claim estimated amount of Rs. 6,63,486/- from the OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2005, Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Vs Shakuntala & Ors., decided on 12.1.2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, C.M.A. No. 1730 of 2006, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs P. Meena & Ors., decided on 21.6.2011 by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and C.M.A. (MD) No. 1413 of 2011, Vijaya Lakshmi etc. Vs V. Gurusamy etc., decided on 16.12.2016 by the Madras High Court.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs also reiterated the contents of written statement.  Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that at the time of accident the complainant was not registered owner of the vehicle in question and the insurance policy was also not in the name of the complainant, so he is not consumer qua the OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is admitted fact that at the time of accident i.e. 26.1.2022, the registration certificate and insurance of the vehicle in question had not been transferred in the name of complainant.  Now, the only question arises whether there was any insurable interest of the complainant or not?  The sought answer is no, because at the relevant time of accident neither the vehicle in question nor the insurance policy was transferred in complainant’s name.  The facts of the case law produced by complainant’s counsel and the facts of the case in hand are different, so the same are not applicable to the present case.  The complainant has failed to prove his case beyond shadow of doubts by leading some cogent and convincing documentary evidence.  On the other hand, OPs have fully proved their stand by leading documentary evidence.  From the perusal of Annexure R3, Survey Report dated 3.9.2022 submitted by Sanjay Kumar Verma, Surveyor, Loss Assessor & Valuer and Annexure R4, Investigation Report submitted by Ishant Kharbanda, it is clear that at the time of accident, complainant has no insurable interest, as the vehicle in question was not registered in complainant’s name and the insurance was also not in his name.  There was no privity of contract between complainant and insurance company.  Thus, it is proved on record beyond any doubt that the complainant was not the owner of vehicle in question at the time of accident. 

9.                So, in our view, now the complainant is not consumer qua the OPs at the time of accident.  Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order to cost.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.