BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Avtar Singh s/o Sh.Karnail Singh Village & P.O. Tala Kaur, Teh. Jagadhari, Distt. Yamunanagar.

IInd Address:

H.No.503, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO 133-135, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

..…Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Anish Babbar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OPs.

PER SH. P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

             It is case of the complainant that he purchased second hand car bearing Registration No.CH03-Y-2275 from the original owner Sh.Mohinder Lal Verma r/o H.No.136, E-Block, Nayagaon, Distt. Mohali, c/o H.No.3024, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh. The agreed consideration amount was paid to the original owner Sh.Mohinder Lal Verma.

              It is further case of the complainant that the said vehicle was insured with the OPs and policy was valid upto 13.10.2009 in the name of Sh.Mohinder Pal Verma.

              It is further case of the complainant is that on the unlucky day of 10.6.2009, the said car was stolen from Mandi Gobindgargh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (PB.).  Subsequently FIR No.118, dated 12.6.2009 with the Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh was recorded u/s 379 IPC . Despite best efforts, the car could not be traced and as such untraced report was submitted by the Police in the Court at Fatehgarh Sahib. Copy of the FIR and untraced report are annexed as Annexure C-3 andC-4.

              It is further case of the complainant that immediately after the incident, the OPs were informed. The necessary documents including copy of the FIR, untraced report etc. were submitted for settlement of the claim to the insurance company.

              It is further case of the complainant that he received letter dated 11.1.2010 from the OP qua which the claim was repudiated on the ground that claimant has no insurable interest and there is also breach of  terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that the denial of the claim is based on the surveyor report which is illegal, arbitrary. Hence this complaint.

2.           OP filed reply and took preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer. Limitation and jurisdiction point was raised. On merits, it is stated that insurance policy has been taken by Sh.Mohinder Lal Verma. No insurance policy has been issued in the name of the complainant  nor the complainant has ever paid the premium to the replying OP. However, it is stated that intimation dated 14.7.2009  was received and copy of the same is Annexure R-2. The motor claim form dated 6.8.2009 filed by the complainant showing himself to be insured which is not so as the insured is Mohinder Lal Verma.

              It is further replied that after receiving intimation, Sh.N.K.Sehgal was appointed as Investigator to investigate the claim of the complainant, who submitted the claim report which is Annexure R-5. The investigator specifically stated in his report that the insurance policy stands in the previous owner Sh.Mohinder Lal Verma, so the claim was not payable to the complainant as he was not having insurable interest. It was further stated that claim was treated as No Claim. The investigator also reported that vehicle was being used as Taxi at the time of the theft. Keeping in view the insurance policy and report of investigator, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 11.1.2010. The repudiation of the claim was stated to be legal. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           It is an admitted fact that on the date of theft, the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company-OP for the period from 14.10.2008 to 13.102009 vide policy (Annexure R-1/C-2).

6.           The claim in question has not been settled by the OP on the ground that while processing the claim, it was observed that on the date of accident, complainant had no insurable interest in vehicle no. CH-03-Y-2275. That complainant had not got the insurance policy transferred in his name as per the provisions of GR No.17of the India Motor Tariff.

7.           Now the only point which calls for determination from this Court is whether the complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle in question on the date of theft? The answer to this is in the negative.

8.           That Sh.Mohinder Lal Verma had sold the vehicle in question to the complainant. The theft of the vehicle took place on 10.06.2009, when GR-17 and not GR-10 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Rules  was applicable in view of which the transferee has to apply to the insurance company for transfer of the insurance policy in his favour and also to pay Rs.50/- as fee for this purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in  case of G.Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999(2) PLR, 274, has held that under the old Motor Vehicle Act, there is no automatic transfer of the insurance policy qua other claims than third party claims. The entire case law was discussed by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case. Following the said principle of law, the Hon'ble National Commission in case of Om Parkash Sharma vs. National Insurance Company and others , 1V( 2008) CPJ , 65 ( National Commission) held that section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act applies to third party risks and not to own damage claims. It was also held that if the insurance policy was not got transferred by the transferee in his favour, he would have no locus standi to file the complaint. The matter again came up before the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Madan Singh vs. United India Insurance Company and others , 1 (2009) CPJ, 158 (National Commission). In that case, the case law on the said subject was discussed and the same proposition was reiterated by the Hon'ble National Commission that in such cases, the transfer of the insurance policy is necessary to claim benefit for own damage claims. Similar was the view taken by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission in case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Arjun Singh ,2010 (2) CLT,240.

9.           Thus, it is held that Sh.Avtar Singh has no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of accident. It is made clear that the present case is squarely covered by GR-17, referred to above and the law relating to it has been discussed in para supra(s).

10.          As a result of the above discussion, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

11.          Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record.