BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.92 of 2016
Date of Instt. 24.02.2016
Date of Decision: 09.08.2017
Swaranjit Chopra s/o Sh. Anand Saroop Chopra r/o 143, Urban Estate Phase-I, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dalhousie Road, Pathankot through its Divisional Manager.
2. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Adv Counsel for complainant.
Sh. RK Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that he is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.PB-02-AM-7002, Chasis No.K86106 and Engine No.K82020, purchased from Narinder Kumar Sharma on 30.03.2014 and the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant alongwith the insurance policy bearing No.1111003113P104974070, issued by OP No.1 having validity from 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014. The said vehicle was purchased on 30.03.2014 and after getting the required papers from the seller, the complainant had applied for transfer of registration of the same on 30.05.2014, for which the necessary fee was deposited by the complainant with the DTO, Jalandhar. That being outstation vehicle, it took around more than three months in getting the same transferred and the complainant could not get the insurance transferred till 19.09.2014, when during intervening night of 18/19.09.2014, when the said vehicle was parked outside the house of the complainant, was stolen for which he got registered FIR No.140 dated 19.09.2014 at PS Division No.7, Jalandhar.
2. That the complainant lodged a claim with the OPs all the facts were verified by the OPs through independent investigator, who has corroborated the facts and incident that took place. The police was unable to trace the vehicle and had submitted its report in the Court of Sh. GS Sekhon, JMIC, Jalandhar on 23.03.2015. Since the vehicle was insured with the OPs and the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant alongwith insurance and the said insurance policy was never retained by the earlier owner and the theft took place during the validity of the insurance policy, therefore the OPs were liable to pay the compensation to the complainant but the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 07.04.2015 on the ground that the insurance was not got transferred by the complainant in his name and there was no legal contract between the complainant and the OPs. Whereas as mentioned above, the same was not got transferred as the complainant as he has not got the copy of the registration certificate issued from the OP. Even assuming it, though not admitted, if there was no legal contract between the complainant and the OPs, then what was the need for the OPs to get the matter investigated. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant on flimsy ground is not maintainable for which the complainant got served legal notice dated 25.01.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insured amount viz Rs.2,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and also be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared and filed their joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the OPs, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that it is an admitted fact by the complainant that he became owner of the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.PB-02-AM-7002 on 30.03.2014 by purchasing the same from its previous owner Narinder Kumar Sharma and delivery of the vehicle was also taken by the complainant on 30.03.2014. The handing over of the possession of the vehicle amounts to sale and it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate the insurance company to get the insurance transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions contained U/s 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff as per which certificate of insurance has to be transferred in the name of the purchaser. GR-17 provides as follows:-
“On transfer of the ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
In case of package policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee alongwith consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee's entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.
A fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.
Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferree can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old certificate of insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration of that effect is to be taken from the transferree before a new certificate of Insurance is issued.”
4. In view of the above, it is clear that the provisions of Secion 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, which are also on the same lines as that of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff have not been complied in the present case as the complainant neither intimated the purchase of the vehicle to the OP nor applied for the transfer of insurance in his name as required under Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff. The complainant took two months for applying for transfer of registration certificate in his name and applied for transfer of registration of the vehicle on 30.05.2014 and deposited fee for transfer of registration on 30.05.2014. Even the intimation, of loss of vehicle after inordinately delayed, was given to OP on 12.11.2014 after about 53 days from the date of loss. So, in these circumstances, the complainant was having no insurable interest in the vehicle as on the date of loss as there was no legal contract between the complainant and the OP as the complainant failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name after purchasing the vehicle as per law and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated after due application of mind, vide letter of repudiation dated 07.04.2015 and the complainant was informed accordingly, even there is no deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 07.04.2015. Repudiating the claim as per law and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not amount to any deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice and as such the complaint against the OPs is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the averments in regard to purchase of the vehicle in question and theft of the said vehicle as well as registration of FIR and submitting insurance claim to the OP and investigator was appointed by the OP for investigating the theft are admitted by the OP and further submitted that the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaspal Singh as Ex.OA alongwith some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-4 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. In this case, the factum in regard to purchase of the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.PB02AM7002, from Narinder Kumar Sharma on 30.03.2014 by the complainant and further it is also admitted that the said vehicle was insured by the previous owner Narinder Kumar Sharma from OP No.1 and 2 for the period 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014 and possession of the said vehicle was also handed over to the complainant by Narinder Kumar Sharma and it is also not denied by the OPs that the said vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 18/19.09.2014 and a case FIR No.140 dated 19.09.2014 was registered by the complainant with the PS Division No.7, Jalandhar and even the insurance claim was lodged by the complainant, which was got investigated from independent investigator by the OP and it is also admitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs, vide repudiation letter dated 07.04.2015 Ex.C11.
9. The dispute, in this case is only that the complainant purchased the said vehicle alongwith insurance policy and as per version of the counsel for the complainant that the insurance policy deemed to be transferred in the name of the complainant, after purchasing the vehicle and in support of this submission, the learned counsel for the complainant made reliance a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, in a citation 2014(2) TAC 369, title “ Mallamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Others” and further made reliance a pronouncement of Maharastra State Commission, cited in 2013(3) CPJ 37, title “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anusuya and another”.
10. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the insurance policy cannot be considered as deemed to be transferred in the name of the purchaser till its intimation is not given to the insurance company, in writing for transfer of the said insurance policy in the name of the new owner but in this case, the complainant never intimated to the OP in regard to purchase of the vehicle in question and as such the complainant has violated the terms and conditions, contained under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff and in order to give strength to his submission, he made reliance a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2008(4) CPJ 65, title “Om Parkash Sharma Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and Others”, wherein their Lordship held as under:-
“Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 157, Insurance, Motor Accident Claim, Vehicle sold by owner prior to accident and registration transferred in petitioner's name, transfer of policy not applied, claim repudiated on the ground that policy not transferred in petitioner's name, Section 157, Motor Vehicles Act applies to third party risk, not own damage claim, petitioner has no locus standi to file the complaint, repudiation of claim by insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service”. He further made reliance on the same point of a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2014(3) CPJ 1, title “Didar Singh and another Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager” and further made reliance an other pronouncement of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2016(3) CPR 691, title “Fazle Mubeen Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd”.
11. We have gone through the facts as well as judgments, given by both the counsel for the parties and find that as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff, it is the liability of the transferee to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer, who has insured the vehicle with the detail of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, consent of the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy, but in this case, the complainant has never applied for transfer of the policy within the stipulated period of 14 days, though the registration was not transferred in the name of the complainant but even then he has to apply for transfer of the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of purchase, alongwith the consent letter of the previous owner. So, it is clearly violation of the terms and conditions, contained in Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff and if we see the said judgments, in the light of the above provisions as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. (supra) 2014(2) TAC 369, we have gone through the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other judgment referred by the learned counsel for the complainant (Supra) 2013(3) CPJ 37, Maharastra State Commission and find that the said judgments are applicable, in case the claim is of 3rd party but in the present case, the complainant claimed for his own damages and as such the aforesaid judgments as referred by learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable and further we like to refer an other pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is referred in the judgment of the Apex Court, cited by the complainant and in this judgment, his Lordship has categorically make it clear that there is no automatic transfer of insurance policy qua other claims then 3rd party claims, transferee who does not follow the procedure under Section 157 to intimate and get the policy transfer is not entitled to claim for his personal damages to the vehicle from the insurer, this judgment is cited in 1999(1) ACJ 781, title “G. Govindan Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd”.
12. Apart from above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have also gone through the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the OP, which are very much relevant and applicable in the present case and as such in the light of the judgments, referred by the learned counsel for the OP, the complainant himself violated the terms of Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff and thus, there is no locus standi to the complainant to file the instant complaint and even there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and thus we reached to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the complainant miserably failed to convince this Forum to decide the matter in favour of the complainant and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
09.08.2017 Member President
