Delhi

East Delhi

CC/379/2021

SMT. NEERA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSUAANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 379/2021

 

	Neera R/o. H.No. 6, Street No. 11, New Lahore Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.	….Complainant
Versus
	The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 320200, Through Its Authorised Signatory Office At; C-30, Community Centre, Naraina, New Delhi-110028	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 01.10.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 11.08.2023

Judgment Passed on: 11.08.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh.       S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh.       Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.      Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. By this order Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant w.r.t. deficiency in repudiating the claim of the complainant w.r.t. his stolen vehicle/car.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased vehicle bearing no. DL-1CAA-5485 from one Sh. Kuldeep Kumar on 12.03.2021 which had valid policy issued by OP being Policy No. 98000031202009779907 valid upto 24.12.2021 and after purchasing the same she applied for transfer for RC which was transferred on 18.03.2021and received by her by way of Speed Post on 21.03.2021 and she could not inform the Insurance Company immediately after getting RC transferred on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, in the family and after 09.04.2021 the husband of the complainant contacted the customer care no. 18002091415 and requested  for transferring of Insurance Policy in the name of complainant and even sent an email to the OP but her insurance was not transferred and unfortunately her vehicle got stolen on 27.04.2021 whereafter she lodged FIR in Police Station, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The closure report of which was finally received from the Court of Sh. Pankaj Arora, Ld. ACMM, Karkardooma on 28.06.2021 which was duly informed to the OP but it repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has not applied for transfer of Insurance Policy within time and there is violation of GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff vide letter 02.08.2021 which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint thereby claiming insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,30,929/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 6 lakh and legal expenses of Rs. 11,000/-.
3. OP has filed its reply taking preliminary objections that the repudiation of the claim was in accordance with the rules as the complainant admittedly had not informed the Insurance Company for transfer of the Insurance Policy in the name of complainant within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC in writing which is in violation of GR-17 Indian Motor Tariff and this interalia means that the vehicle was in the name of Ms. Neera(Complainant) at the time that theft, whereas policy holder was Sh. Kuldeep (previous owner) and the complainant had no insurable interest and therefore there is no deficiency on the part OP.
4. As far as fact w.r.t. sending the email by the complainant on 16.04.2021 concerned it is submitted that the said email w.r.t. transfer of Insurance Policy was  not within stipulated time therefore claim of the complainant be rejected.
5. Complainant has filed rejoinder alongwith evidence and has exhibited following document;

• The copy of RC valid pollution and valid insurance of vehicle No. DL1CAA-5485 are Ex. CW-1/A.
• The copy of intimation to RTO regarding theft are Ex. CW-1/B.
• The copy of FIR is Ex. CE-1/C.
• Copy of untraced report before Court is Ex. CW-1/D.
• The copy of agreement to sale of vehicle and IDs of both seller and purchaser alongwith bill and form 35 is Ex. CE-1/E.
• The copies of Emails are Ex. CE-1/F.
• The copy of envelop and tracking report where RC is received by the complainant is Ex. CE-1/G.
• Photocopy of keys of Car is Ex. CE-1/H.
• The copies of medical in Ortho of complainant dt. 18.03.2021 are Ex. CE-1/I.
• The copy of Covid-19 positive and negative report of brother in law of the complainant is Ex. CE-1/J.
• The copy of list of people quarantine is Ex. CE-1/K.
• The copy of call details of customer number is Ex. CE-1/L.
• The copy of rejection letter is Ex. CE-1/M.
• The copy of legal notice is Ex. CE-1/N.
• The copy of original receipt is Ex. CE-1/O.
• The copy of delivery report is Ex. CE-1/P.
• The copy of Supreme Court order for quarantine period is Ex. CE-1/Q.
• The copy of order of the government of NCD of Delhi Disaster Management Authority are Ex. CE-1/R.

6. OP has filed its evidence through Sh. Prabha Malhotra, Manager of OP and has exhibited only one document i.e. GR-17, Indian Motor Tariff as exhibit as RW-1/1.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. The fact that complainant purchased the vehicle, got the RC transferred in her name, it was having Insurance Policy of Rs. 3,30,929/- vehicle was stolen FIR was lodged information of the same was given to the Insurance Company and untraced report is filed are not disputed. The only defence of the OP is that the repudiation has been done rightly on the basis as late applying by complainant for transfer of Insurance Policy which is violation of GR-17. The Court has perused all the records & it has to be observed that right from the March 2020 upto to the year Februray 2022 particularly from the period of March 2021 upto July 2021, the Covid-19 Pandemic restrictions were strictly in operation and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble NCDRC in Suo-Moto Petition, has extended all necessary period of limitation from time to time and therefore following the direction as issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court & NCDRC during the Covid-19 period by the OP the contention of the OP that transfer of Insurance Policy was made late, is nothing more than a overt act to deny the claim. The Hon’ble NCDRC as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments otherwise also has held and given various guidelines to the Insurance Company to the effect that it should not be too technical  to deny the claim of rightful person particularly in case of theft of vehicle. It has been recently held in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annamma Raju & Ors., by Hon’ble High Court, Kerala in MACA No. 2585 of 2016 in which case, no such intimation was given by to the Insurance Company for transfer of the Insurance Policy and the Hon’ble High Court ‘Kerala’ ultimately held that certificate of insurance is deemed to have transferred in favour of transferee once appropriate application has been given to the insured and even otherwise Section 157(2) of the Indian Motor Tariff Act, although provides intimation of such transfer yet the statute is silence as to  the consequences of not complying such directions and therefore it can only be directory in nature and not mandatory in nature. In the present case in hand also, it is not the defence of OP that insurance has been cancelled or amount has been forfeited. There is no such judgment so far to the effect that such insurance policy would be cancelled by the insured in case of late information. Moreover, it is not the person/owner who is insured rather it is vehicle which is insured with all insurable interest. Therefore the defence of the OP is not well found.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case again the Ld. Counsel for OP has not replied when enquired as what the Insurance Company has done after receiving the email from the complainant w.r.t. transfer of the Insurance Policy i.e. as to whether the Insurance Company has rejected the application or has accepted the application or disposed off the same otherwise by invoking provision of GR-17 of IMT. There is complete silence on this aspect by the Insurance Company. Apparently it appears that Insurance Company has become too technical while dealing with the application as given by the complainant and it has not held anybody in the office as liable as to what has happened to the Pending Application filed by the complainant. Therefore this conduct of OP comes within the deficiency of service while repudiating the claim of the complainant.
10. The Commission is of the opinion that OP is liable to make the payment of insured value alongwith compensation to the complainant. The Commission therefore order as follows:

• OP to pay Rs.3,30,929/- to the complainant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint.
• OP to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation alongwith Litigation Expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
• This Order is to be complied within 30 days from the receiving the same & in case the OP would not pay the amount within 30 days the rate of interest would be @9% from the date of filing the case upto the date of actual payment on the entire amount including of compensation amount.                
  3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 11.08.2023.