BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.304 of 2014

Date of Instt. 02.09.2014

Date of Decision :20.01.2015

Rajinder Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Jeet Ram, R/o EP-87, Ram Cali, Saidan Gate, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Patel Chowk, Jalandhar through its Senior Branch Manager.

2. Sh.A.R.Kamal, Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Patel Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Sanjeev Bali Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the owner of the Maruti Car Zen bearing registration No.PB08-AT-3528 duly insured with opposite party No.1 under Motor Vehicle Act bearing policy No.401110/31/13/ 6100001683 valid from 6.5.2013 till 5.5.2014. Earlier the car bearing No.PB-08AT-3528 was in the name of Subhash Chander Nanda and the registered ownership of this car was transferred solely in the name of complainant by DTO Office, Jalandhar. On 29.1.2014 at about 9.00 PM, the complainant parked his car bearing No.PB-08AT-3528 LXi model of white colour near Punjab Kesari Ground, Jalandhar and on 30.1.2014, in the morning at about 10.00 AM, when the complainant went to the parking spot, the vehicle i.e Zen car was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant then made a complaint to the police of PS Div.No.4, and the police registered an FIR No.23 dated 14.2.2014, U/s 379 of IPC. The complainant gave the information of the theft of his car to the office of the opposite parties at their office. The insurance policy of the car was valid when the car was stolen. Sh.Amrinder Ahluwalia the inspection/Surveyor Officer of the company approached the complainant and inspected the spot from where the car was stolen and he also came to the conclusion that the car was stolen. The complainant then filed the insurance claim of Rs.1,22,500/- with the opposite parties. The complainant number of times went to office of opposite parties but they did not listen to him and misbehaved with the complainant and did not accede to the requests of the complainant. The opposite parties then sent a letter dated 10.7.2014 to the complainant stating that the insurance policy is not in his name and therefore his claim file is closed as No Claim. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to give him the claim amount of Rs.1,22,500/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, raising a preliminary objection that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. The policy of insurance in the present case was issued by the opposite parties in the name of Subhash Chander Nanada son of Diwan Chand Nanda. The complainant is the purchaser of vehicle from Subhash Chander Nanda insured. The complainant after the purchase of vehicle from Subhash Chander Nanda, has not got the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name from the opposite parties and that being so, the present complaint is not maintainable. They also took preliminary objections regarding late intimation to the police, locus-standi etc. They further pleaded that complainant has not applied for the transfer of certificate of insurance with the opposite parties as per provisions of section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which clearly lays down that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. Complainant for the reasons best known to him has not applied for the transfer of certificate of insurance in his favour within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle as per provisions of section 157 of the M.V.Act and that being so is not entitled to any claim from the opposite parties and has not no cause of action whatsoever in his favour to file the present complaint. Thus the claim of the complainant has been rightly closed as no claim/declined by the opposite parties. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1-2/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

6. Ex.C1 is certificate of insurance in respect of the stolen car and it is in the name of Subhash Chander Nanda from whom the complainant purchased the car in question. After theft complainant lodged FIR and further lodged claim with opposite party insurance company but opposite party insurance company declined his claim vide letter dated 10.7.2014 Ex.C4 observing as under:-

"On scrutiny of the claim file it is observed that you had purchased the above said vehicle from Mr.Subhash Chander Nanda S/o Mr.Diwan Chand Nanda (photocopy of cover note placed on file) but insurance policy had been issued in the name of Mr.Subhash Chander Nanda. As per company rules there is no insurable interest in this claim. Hence your claim file is closed as No Claim".

7. Certificate of insurance is in the name of previous owner i.e Subhash Chander Nanda. The complainant never got the certificate of insurance transfered in his name, as per provision of section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated or declined by opposite party insurance company on the ground that he has no insurable interest in the stolen car. The deemed transfer of the policy in favour of the purchaser as provided in section 157 of the M.V.Act 1988 is only applicable in cases of 3rd party claims. In support of this view reference may be made to M/s Complete Insulations(P) Ltd Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586.

8. In Didar Singh & Anr Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, III(2014) CPJ 1 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission in similar circumstances has held as under:-

"It is admitted fact that Didar Singh purchased vehicle and transfered it to Major Singh and intimation of transfer was not given by both the complainants to OP. It is admitted fact that vehicle was not transfered in the name of Major Singh after sale of vehicle by Didar Singh to Major Singh. Vehicle was stolen from the custody of Major Singh, Major Singh had no insurable interest on the date of theft”

10. In the present case, on the date of theft, the complainant was owner having purchased the car in question from its previous owner but he never got the certificate of insurance transfered in his name by giving intimation regarding the purchase of the car to the insurance company. On the date of theft, the certificate of insurance was in the name of previous owner Subhash Chander Nanda. So on the date of theft, complainant was not having any insurable interest in the stolen car. So the opposite party insurance company has rightly declined the claim of the complainant on this ground.

11. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.01.2015 Member President