Haryana

Ambala

CC/74/2019

Sahil Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Aggarwal

16 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 74 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  11.03.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  16.03.2020.

 

Sahil Grover son of Sh. Mittar Pal, aged 32 years, resident of House No.865, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1.       New India Assurance Company Ltd., Civil Lines, Arya Chowk, Ambala     City, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Jeet Singh son of Sh. Jagga Ram, resident of village Sarangpur, P.O.          Dhurkara, District Ambala.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                            

Present:       Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri Nitesh Sawhney, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.4,14,000/- i.e. the insured amount of the car, to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f 14.01.2018, till its actual payment..
2. To pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit be passed in favour of the complainant.

 

Brief facts of the case are that earlier the OP No.2 was the registered owner of the Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.HR01AJ-8478 and the same was duly insured with the OP No.1, vide policy No.35350231170300003774 having IDV of Rs.4,14,000/- for the period from 07.06.2017 to 06.06.2018, on payment of premium amount of Rs.13,590/-. Complainant purchased the said car from the OP No.2 and applied for transfer of the said vehicle in his name on 08.11.2017, before the Registration Authority, Ambala. The said authority issued a receipt dated 08.11.2017, having validity of one month i.e. upto 08.12.2017. The said authority charged requisite fee for transfer of ownership of the vehicle and told the complainant that R.C. in his name would be dispatched at his address, after transfer of the vehicle in his name. After waiting till 08.12.2017, when the complainant did not receive the R.C., he visited the office of the Registration Authority, Ambala on 09.12.2017. The said Authority after taking back the receipt dated 08.11.2017, handed over the RC issued in his name. On 13.12.2017, brother of the complainant namely Ayush Grover, took the  said car for some urgent work to Delhi and around 10:50 P.M., parked the same by locking it properly in the parking lot of Vatika Apartment Mayapuri, New Delhi. On 14.12.2017, at about 10:00 A.M., when his brother reached the parking lot, he found the car missing. His brother tried to locate the same, but could not found it. He immediately, informed the police at Police Control Room No.100, regarding the theft of the car. Complainant, after receiving the call from his brother about the theft of his car, immediately lodged online FIR No.39614 dated 14.12.2017, with e-police station Hari Nagar West District Crime Branch Delhi. Police also reached at the spot and tried to trace out the car, but unable to trace the same. At the time of theft, the RC was lying inside the car. Complainant immediately informed the OP No.1, regarding theft of his car. After waiting for some days, complainant visited the OP No.1, to know about the formalities required to be done to get the claim. OP No.1 directed the complainant to lodge the claim in the name of OP No.2, being policy holder. As per the direction, complainant lodged his claim through OP No.2 and fulfilled all the required and desired formalities for release of the claim amount, but the OP No.1, illegally repudiated his genuine claim vide letter dated 24.08.2018, by alleging that the complainant was not having any insurable interest as on the date of theft of the vehicle, because the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 08.11.2017, but he did not get transferred the insurance policy in his name, within 14 days w.e.f. 08.11.2017. The OPs have wrongly repudiated his claim because complainant had applied for the change of ownership of the vehicle in question on 08.11.2017 and had received the registration certificate on 09.12.2017, from the office of the Registration Authority, Ambala. The complainant had to apply for the transfer of the insurance policy in his name, within 14 days from the date of receipt of R.C. He received the RC on 09.12.2017 and as such he could have applied for transfer of insurance policy in his name upto 23.12.2017. Whereas, the vehicle was stolen on 13/14.12.2017, before the expiry of 14 days. Untrace report had also been submitted with the OP no.1. By not releasing the claim of the complainant, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, not coming before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands, suppression of true and material facts, no locus standi. On merits, it is stated that the insurance policy was issued by OP No.1 in favour of Mr. Jeet Ram son of Shri Jagga Ram for the period from 07.06.2017 to 06.06.2018. The said insurance policy was issued subject to certain terms and conditions and the insured or any subsequent purchaser was legally bound to abide and follow the said terms and conditions, without any failure or lapse. Accordingly, as per GR17, the subsequent purchaser was legally bound to get the insurance policy transferred in his name by applying with fresh proposal form and required fee. In the present case, the complainant as well as the previous owner did not come forward to comply with their legal obligation and thus violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The car was transferred in the name of the complainant on 08.11.2017, but did not apply to the OP No.1, for the transfer of the insurance policy of the said car. As per law, a person should have applied for transfer of insurance policy in his favour within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle in his name without waiting for the registration certificate. The contention raised by the complainant is bundle of lies as he had received the registration certificate much before 09.12.2017. Registration record is available online, but he did not apply to the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy before the theft of his car. He is trying to escape from his own lapse by creating a concocted story with an imaginary date of 09.12.2017. Since, the car was stolen in the intervening night of 13/14.12.2017, so on the day of loss, there was no contract between the OP No.1 and the complainant, thus the complainant was having no insurable interest and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after investigating the case and verifying all the documents and also after appraising the facts and contentions raised by the complainant. The OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim and the present complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, stating therein that complainant informed it and also the OP No.1 about the theft of the car. Complainant lodged the complaint with the police, regarding theft of his car. OP no.1 had illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and is bound to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.1, may be allowed.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure-CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri K.K. Sachdeva, Sr. Divn. Manager & Authorized Signatory, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2, tendered affidavit of OP No.2 as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2 .

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 vehemently argued that the OP No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because at the time of theft of the vehicle the insurance policy was not in the name of the complainant.

                   On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of theft of the car, it was duly transferred in favour of the complainant. As per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to new owner and the policy will not lapse, even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the M.V. Act is not given to the insurer. More so, vehicle in question got stolen before the expiry of the 14 days from the date of receipt of the RC, therefore the complainant is entitled to be indemnified for the loss suffered by him. The Insurance company is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 07.04.2014, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Mallama (dead) by L.Rs versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., wherein it has been held that the ownership of the vehicle stood transferred and the said vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured in light of the deeming provision contained in Section 157(1) of the M.V. Act.

                   From the application Annexure C-6, it is evident that the application for transfer of ownership of the car in question was moved by the complainant before the Registration Authority on 08.11.2017 and the smart card was generated on 17.11.2017. The plea of the complainant is that he received the registration certificate on 09.12.2017 and as per GR17, he was required to apply to the Insurance Company, for transfer of insurance policy in his name, within 14 days from the date of receipt of R.C. Meaning, thereby he could have applied for transfer of the insurance policy in his name upto 23.12.2017. However, before the expiry of the period of 14 days his car along with his RC got stolen on 14.12.2017. In this situation, the OP No.1 is liable to indemnify him. It may be stated here that irrespective of the fact that the smart card was generated in the system of Registering Authority on 08.11.2017, but effect thereupon with regard to claim will be presumed only on the date when the same stood delivered to the complainant. Thus, the onus sits upon the Insurance Company i.e. OP No.1 to prove that as to on which date the said smart card was delivered to the complainant, especially in the event of objection taken by the complainant in that regard. Since, no evidence has been produced by the OP No.1, against the objection raised by the complainant, therefore we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that he received the RC on 09.12.2017. Undisputedly, the car of the complainant got stolen on 13/14.12.2017, i.e. before the expiry of 14 days from the date of receipt of RC, thus the Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. From the policy document Annexure C-1/OP2/OP2/1, it is quite clear that the car in question was duly insured with the OP No.1 for an IDV of Rs.4,14,000/- for the period from 07.06.2017 to 06.06.2018. As such the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant for the amount of Rs.4,14,000/- i.e. IDV of the car in question. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant along with litigation expenses. So far as the complaint filed against OP No.2 is concerned, it deserves dismissal, because neither any specific allegation has been levelled against it by the complainant nor it has been proved.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 with the following directions:-

1. To pay Rs.4,14,000/- i.e. IDV of the car in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim of the complainant i.e. 24.08.2018, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

                  

                   The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on 16.03.2020.

 

                                                (Ruby Sharma)                         (Neena Sandhu)

                                                      Member                                  President

                                                                                                DCDRF, Ambala.