CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/429/2014
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Smt. Rashmi Bhatia @ Rashmi
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Presently R/o- H. No. B-13/11, Krishna Villa,
Gali No. 1, Joshi Colony, Mandawali, Delhi-92.
Permanent R/o- B-78, Mandawali Fazalpur,
Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-92. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
A Govt. of India Undertaking
General Claims Hub
2E/25, 3rd Floor, Above HDFC Bank,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
Through its Branch Manager
M/s Satguru Motors
Through its partner
A-21, Double storey, Ramesh Nagar
New Delhi-110015.
The Branch Manager
HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W),
Mumbai-400013. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint has been filed by Smt. Rashmi Bhatia (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that she approached M/s Satguru Motors (in short OP2) to purchase an old car as OP2 is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of new, old and used four wheelers. Complainant was informed by OP2 that a Hyundai Verna bearing registration no. DL 3ACL 7464 belonging to Sh. Subhash Chandra resident of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. was available for sale. The total sale price of the said vehicle was finalized at Rs. 4,56,000/- out of which complainant got a loan of Rs. 3,04,379/- from HDFC Bank Limited (in short OP3). He paid the balance in cash. Vehicle was stolen on 02.05.2013. Theft was intimated to the police immediately FIR No. 232 dated 02.05.2013 was registered under Section 379 IPC at police station Madhu Vihar. Police filed untraced report dated 05.06.2013 before the appropriate authority. Complainant intimated the theft of the vehicle to OP3 on 03.05.2013. Complainant received registration certificate, insurance policy, second keys of the vehicle and other necessary documents on 05.05.2013 from OP2. OP1, the insurer of the vehicle, was informed about theft of the vehicle on 06.05.2012. Complainant submitted her claim to OP1 for realization of the claim amount but her claim was repudiated by OP1 stating that she had no insurable interest. Hence the instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP1 and OP2 to release the claim amount of Rs.4,79,379/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 29.03.2013 till its realization, to direct OP3 to “submit the documents in respect of sanction, repayment schedule and release of loan no. 24057912 and the statement of account of the amount already received by OP-3 from the date of inception till date” and to direct OP1 and OP2 to pay Rs.10,00,000/- for causing mental agony.
- OP2 contested the claim vide its separate reply. It is stated that the claim, if any, lies against the insurance company and not against OP2 and as such he has been impleaded unnecessarily and hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. On merits it is stated that OP2 merely introduced the complainant to Sh. Subhash Chandra, owner of the vehicle. It is also stated that complainant was supplied original documents namely; Registration Certificate, duplicate key as well as sale letter of the car at the time of delivery of the car on 29.03.2013 itself. It is further submitted that complainant has falsely alleged that he was supplied the documents later on. It is stated that it is impossible to ply the vehicle on road without necessary documents. It is also stated that complainant was fully aware of the fact that vehicle was registered in the name of Sh. Subhash Chandra and was insured from 04.07.2012 03.04.2013 of IDV of Rs. 4,00,000/- and this is what she has pleaded in her complaint also.
- OP1 has filed separate reply wherein it is pleaded that it issued a policy in favor of Sh. Subhash Chandra for IDV of Rs. 4,00,000/- and there is no privity of contract between complainant and the insurance company(OP1). It is further stated that complainant never applied for ‘transfer of insurance policy’ in her favour which is in violation of GR-17. Further it is stated that complainant intimated about the theft of the vehicle to OP1 on 06.05.2013 i.e. 4 days after the theft of the vehicle. It is stated that repudiation was justified as complainant had no insurable interest.
- OP3 filed a separate reply wherein it was pleaded that complainant took a car loan of Rs. 3,04,379/- and that on 09.04.2015 amount of Rs. 1,15,947.51/- was outstanding in the name of complainant. It is also stated that cheque issued by her bearing no. bearing no. E24057912/4#1 bounced on 06.08.2013. It is further stated that it is only a performa party and there is no deficiency in service in respect of OP3.
- Parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard Sh. Sanjay Kumar, counsel for OP1 and Ms. Bhanu Priya, counsel for OP3.
- In Para 10 Page 9 of the complaint it is pleaded that complainant informed OP1 about theft of the vehicle on 06.05.2013. The vehicle was stolen on 02.05.2013. Hence, there is admitted delay of 4 days in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurer.
- In Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs. Rajaram and Ors. 2017 (1) CPR 391 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has observed thus:-
“Insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate theft of vehicle to insurer immediately after theft came to his knowledge.Mere intimating police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with terms and conditions of insurance policy.”
<>8.“Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle the claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.”
- Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that:
“The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it….
Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 an insurance was taken out under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which their Lordships' observed:
“The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.”
- Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract has to be read strictly. It was observed, “In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”
- In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09/12/2009 National Commission took the same view after discussing the judgment of Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) it was held that:
“The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time.It was held that compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted.”
Delay in intimation OP1 about theft of the vehicle violates the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.
- In the complaint the complainant has not clarified that on which date the sale transaction took place. It is stated that it was only on 05.05.2013 that she received original registration certificate, insurance documents, 2nd key of the car and other required documents from OP2. She has also placed on record copy of her letter dated 03.06.2012 addressed to the insurance company in which inter alia she stated that “delivery of car was taken by me on 29.03.2013 but RC, Insurance, Pollution, Service Booklet, Second Key and other relevant documents received on 05.05.2013.”
OP2 has stated in its reply that the documents in question were given to the complainant on the date of delivery of the car itself.There seems to be substance in the statement of OP that without necessary documents, car cannot be plied on the road and complainant in her letter to OP1 dated 03.06.2013 clearly stated that she took delivery of the car on 29.03.2013.
- As per GR-17 on transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, the transferee has to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer 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.
- Also under Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act:
“157. Transfer of certificate of insurance.—
(1) ….
- The transferee has to apply within fourteen 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 then makes the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.
On 29.03.2013 complainant received delivery of the car. She never applied to OP1 for transfer of the insurance certificate / policy. Complainant kept on plying the vehicle in violation of GR-17.
- Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that:
“The insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it….
In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 Apex Court observed:
“The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.”
Similarly in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. (1966) 3 SCR 500 the Constitution Bench observed that the policy document being a contract has to be read strictly. It was observed, “In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”
12. As per the aforesaid judgments of Apex Court, policy documents have to be read strictly. The repudiation is therefore justified for delay in intimation of theft to the insurer OP1 and further for failure of the complainant to seek transfer of insurance policy in her name on transfer of ownership of the vehicle within statutory period as discussed above. The complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2019.
