BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.30 of 2018
Date of Institution : 15.1.2018
Date of Decision : 7.2.2019.
Parhlad Kumar, aged 36 years son of Shri Hans Raj, resident of Vill. Munnawali, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at Near Bus Stand, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Derabasi Chopra Towers, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Ambala Highway, Derabasi (Punjab).
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL .……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is the registered owner of Car make Mahindra & Mahindra Varito bearing registration No.HR-25D/0150. That the complainant had got insured the said vehicle from the ops vide insurance policy No.35030731160300001259 issued from the office of op no.1 for a period of one year w.e.f. 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017. The insurance policy was a package policy covering all types of risk involved. That on 24.9.2016, Sandeep Rathi one of the close known person of complainant took the said car for his personal work as he had gone to Bathinda. At about 8.00 p.m. when they were coming back and when reached near village Taruana, then due to heavy reflection of the lighting of the car coming from the opposite side, the car driven by Anil Kumar gone out of control and the car then struck into the trees and suffered heavy damages. A rapat to this effect was registered with Police Station Kalanwali vide DDR No.010 dated 25.9.2016. It is further averred that the complainant on coming to know of the incident and damages to the car reported the matter to the op/ company. The complainant had moved an application before the Branch Manager, branch office Sirsa informing about the accident of the insured car of complainant. The vehicle of complainant suffered heavy damages and was totally damaged. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as estimated repair value likely to be incurred on the car, which is legally payable by op no.1. However, due to non payment of compensation, the damaged car is lying parked in the premises of M/s Garg Motors at Sirsa and the complainant is also undergoing the parking charges. It is further averred that on receiving the information about this, op no.1 appointed their Surveyor and Loss Assessor to investigate the matter and to assess the actual loss after proper survey and to submit his detailed survey report. The said Surveyor collected all the original documents such as RC, insurance policy and estimates got prepared by complainant and after satisfying with the damages assured him that he has assessed the loss and also satisfied out of the estimated repair value of the damage car as of Rs.4,50,000/- and that claim is very much genuine and reasonable and whole of the loss shall be paid by the insurance company to the complainant very soon. It is further averred that complainant kept on waiting for the disbursement of the claim and also contacted the ops many a times but all times he was verbally told that claim has been referred to the Head Office and very soon claim amount would be in his pocket. But till today he has not received any response qua his claim from any of the ops and now after lingering on the matter of disbursement of claim amount to the complainant, the ops have issued a letter dated 9.11.2017 whereby the ops have repudiated the claim of complainant simply stating therein that claim of complainant is repudiated on the ground that “the vehicle in question sold 2 years back to Nishan Singh & NOC was issued in favour of him and still you are submitting the claim papers not having any insurable interest, which was ceased two years back.” The ground for repudiation of claim of complainant is based on totally false and unreliable stand because the vehicle had always been with the complainant. The registration certificate of vehicle is still in name of complainant and the insurance policy of vehicle showing ownership of complainant is also in the name of complainant. The NOC if any in the name of Nishan Singh does not transfer any insurable interest. The NOC is only outcome of the sale settlement which could not be completed on account of non payment of sale consideration, hence the insurable interest has always been and is still with the complainant. It is further averred that complainant got the insurance of the said car on payment of due premium amount to the ops and at that time no such objection was raised by the company but now when the liability is devolved upon them, the op/ company is taking such like frivolous ground for rejecting the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant was having no insurable interest qua the insured car as the complainant had sold the said insured car No. HR25D/0150 to one Nishan Singh son of Chhota Singh, resident of village Singhpura, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa and had also got issued the No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registration Authority, Motor Vehicle, Sirsa, which is meant for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of purchaser, but the ownership of the said car was not got transferred by the purchaser in his favour. This fact has been admitted by the complainant in his duly sworn in affidavit dated 25.10.2017 and also admitted by aforesaid purchaser Nishan Singh in his duly sworn in affidavit dated 25.10.2017. So, claim of complainant has been repudiated by the ops in a legal and lawful manner. It is further submitted that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was under legal obligation to give immediate intimation of the accident to the ops, but the complainant failed to do so, which is violation of the insurance terms and conditions. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant is the registered owner of a Car bearing registration No. HR-25D/0150 which was insured with opposite parties for the period 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017. On 24.9.2016, his close friend Sandeep Rathi took the said car for his personal work as he had gone to Bathinda and on the way at about 8.00 P.M., when they were returning and when reached near village Taruana, then due to heavy reflection of the lights of the car coming from the opposite side, the car driven by Anil Kumar gone out of control and struck into the trees and car suffered heavy damages. Due intimation was given to the insurance company. Surveyor was appointed who assessed loss and submitted his report Ex.C6 but however claim was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily by ops on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest as he has already sold vehicle to one Nishan Singh. The sale agreement was duly cancelled and vehicle was with the complainant and complainant has insurable interest in the vehicle. He has contended that insurance company is liable to settle and pay the claim of complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company & Anr. Versus Gurwinder Singh & Ors. I (2017) CPJ 92.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops submitted written arguments in which it has been contended that complainant was/is having no insurance interest qua the insured car no. HR-25D/0150, as the complainant had sold the insured car to Nishan Singh son of Chhota Singh and affidavit of complainant showing the sale of the said car to Nishan Singh is Ex.R1. Said Nishan Singh also affirmed the fact of purchase of this car vide his affidavit dated 25.10.2017 which is Ex.R2. It has been further submitted that complainant also obtained the NOC in respect of the insured car from the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles, Dabwali which was issued in his favour on 3.2.2016 for RTA, Sirsa, which further shows that the complainant had sold this vehicle to aforesaid Nishan Singh. It has been further submitted that NOC of a vehicle is obtained when the owner sells the vehicle to other person and such purchaser requires the NOC for transfer of ownership of sold vehicle. The NOC dated 3.2.2016 is Ex.R3. Ex.R4 is DDR No.10 dated 25.9.2016, which is in respect of involvement of the insured car in a road side accident. In this DDR, Parhlad Kumar is not shown the owner of this car. So, from the above documents, it is quite clear that on the day of alleged accident, the complainant was not owner of aforesaid car and thus, he had no insurable interest qua the said car. It has further been submitted that as per the provisions of the Road Traffic Rules as well as G.R. No.17, a subsequent purchaser will have to get the insurance policy of the purchased vehicle transferred in his favour within 14 days of purchase, but in this case, these provisions have been grossly flouted. Ld. counsel for ops has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur in case titled as OIC Vs. Nilesh Jain, Appeal No. FA/2017/121 decided on 8.6.2017 and also judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s. Mangal Engg. Works Versus OIC, 2015 (2) CPR 236.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for ops and also gone through record and judgments relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties.
8. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is registered owner of the Car bearing registration No. HR-25D/0150 which was insured with the opposite parties for the period 31.8.2016 to 30.8.2017. It is further undisputed fact that vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 24.9.2016 and a DDR was lodged by one Sandeep Rathi with the police, copy of which is Ex.C5.
9. As per contention of complainant, claim was lodged with the ops but however same was repudiated on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that complainant has already sold vehicle to one Nishan Singh and also got issued NOC in his name from the concerned authority. No doubt, complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and has relied upon affidavits of Sh.Sandeep and Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Nishan Singh as Ex.CW2/A to Ex.CW4/A and complainant has also relied upon copy of policy schedule Ex.C1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, copy of driving licence of Anil Ex.C3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C4, copy of DDR Ex.C5, copy of investigation report Ex.C6, copy of motor survey report Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops have relied upon affidavit of Sh. K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R7/A and have furnished copy of affidavit of complainant Ex.R1, copy of affidavit of Sh. Nishan Singh Ex.R2, copy of vehicle particulars Ex.R3 and copy of DDR Ex.R4. In affidavit Ex.R1, Parhlad complainant has deposed that he had sold his vehicle to Nishan Singh, registered number of which is HR-25D-0150 and that the vehicle is registered in his name and after getting issued the NOC he has handed over the same to Nishan Singh but due to some reason Nishan Singh could not get transferred the vehicle in his name and still the vehicle is in his name and that on 24.9.2016 his friends Anil and Sandeep were coming on the vehicle and in the way near village Taruana, his vehicle lost control and was struck into tree. In affidavit Ex.R2 of Nishan Singh, he has deposed that he had purchased vehicle from Parhlad, registered number of which is HR-25D-0150. The NOC of the vehicle was issued in his favour but due to some reason he could not get transferred the vehicle in his name. On 24.9.2016 his friend Anil and Sandeep were coming on his vehicle and in the way near village Taruana, his vehicle lost control and was struck into tree. From the affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, it is proved fact on record that complainant Parhlad had sold this vehicle to Nishan Singh son of Chhota Singh, resident of village Singhpura, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. He himself has deposed that vehicle is in his name but he got issued NOC in the name of Nishan Singh but however, vehicle could not be transferred due to some reason. Similarly, affidavit Ex.R2 of Nishan Singh also reveals that he has deposed that vehicle was purchased by him from complainant Parhlad Singh and NOC was also issued in his name. So, it appears from affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 that vehicle was sold by Parhlad to Nishan Singh and NOC was got issued by complainant in name of Nishan Singh and these affidavits were got attested by complainant and said Nishan Singh on 25.10.2017. There is no plea of complainant in his complaint as well as affidavit furnished by complainant that these affidavits were not executed by them or same were got executed by insurance company by undue influence or by way of any cheating or fraud. Nor the complainant has placed on record any such document from which it could be presumed that complainant had ever moved any application to the higher authorities or got initiated any proceedings in order to get these affidavits declared null and void. Nor he has initiated any proceeding qua committing of any fraud by any of officials of insurance company. Moreover, it is unbelievable that complainant would get issued No Objection Certificate from the registering authority in favour of purchaser without receiving payment of the sold vehicle. Further we find force from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for ops in which it has been observed that once it is proved on record that insured has no insurable interest in the vehicle, the insurance contract comes to an end and insurance company is not liable to settle and pay any claim.
10. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:7.2.2019 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
