Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 401.
Instituted on : 24.07.2012.
Decided on : 20.07.2015.
Suresh s/o Surajmal R/o VPO Ritauli Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
New India Assurance co. Ltd., Model Town, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Malik, Advovate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle No.HR12-M/1052 by way of transfer from previous registered owner Satyanarain s/o Ram Kishan. It is averred that the said motorcycle was insured with the opposite party for the period w.e.f. 09.06.2011 to 08.06.2012 under policy no.353800/31/11/0100002639 and the said policy is still in the name of its previous owner. It is averred that on 06.04.2012 the said motorcycle was stolen when standing near Satkar Hotel, Model Town, Rohtak and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station, Rohtak. Complainant after completing all the formalities, had filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide letter dated 11.06.2012 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he vehicle has been transferred in the name of complainant and insured has no insurable interest. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the insurance amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the said policy was issued in favour of Satnarain s/o Ram Krishan. As per R.C. and registration authority record vehicle no.HR-12N-1052 stands in the name of Suresh s/o Surajmal of village Ritauli, Rohtak on the date of theft i.e.06.04.2012. Transferee/complainant did not intimate the insurance company regarding change of ownership of the said vehicle within 14 days of the registration of his name, to unable the petitioner to make necessary change in his record and issue a fresh certificate of insurance. The complainant did not have any novation of contract of insurance in respect of person or property. So the complainant did not have any insurance interest on the date of theft. On merits, it is submitted that the claim has been settled as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R10 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. As per policy document Ex.R10, the vehicle No.HR-12M-1052 was insured in the name of Satnarain s/o Sh. Ramkishan for the period from 09.06.2011 to 08.06.2012 with the opposite party and the IDV of vehicle is Rs.43750/-. It is also not disputed that as per copy of FIR Ex.R4 the alleged vehicle was stolen on 06.04.2010 and as per Claim Form Ex.R3, the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed its surveyor who as per his report Ex.R9 has submitted that the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred to Mr. Suresh and now Mr. Suresh also sold the vehicle to Mr. Hardeep. Insured has no interest in the present claim as he sold the said vehicle”. The opposite party vide its letter Ex.C4 addressed to Mr. Satyanarain has submitted that the Satyanarain has no insurable interest in the vehicle, therefore his claim was not maintainable.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per letter Ex.C4 the claim has been repudiated to Satyanarain as he had no insurable interest in the vehicle. The contention of the opposite party is that Satnarain as well as Suresh has also no insurable interest in the vehicle as Suresh had also sold the vehicle to one Hardeep, who was driver at the time of theft. To prove its contention, opposite party has placed on record statements of some persons attached with the investigation report i.e. Satyanarain, Suresh, Hardeep and Naveen Gulia respectively. But the alleged statements have not been supported with the affidavit of the persons. On the other contention of the complainant is that he is entitled for the insurance claim as the vehicle in question was in his name at the time of theft. It is further contended that even if the insurance was not in his name though he is entitle for the insurance claim. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2008(1)CLT titled as Narayn Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Repudiation of claim on the ground that policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser-Regulation suppressed by the respondent insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicle and the transfer of the insurance benefits automatically in favour of transferee-Order of the District forum allowing the complaint restored”, as per 2009(2)CLT303 titled as Oriental Insruance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Parkash Gutpa & Ors. it is held that: “GR10-Insurance Claim-Plea that vehicle had already been transferred to the transferee but the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant, no insurable interest could have been created in the name of the complainant repelled in view of provision GR 10-The respondent/complainant held entitled to the benefit accruing from the policy of theft” and as per 2014(2)CCC 694(S.C.) titled as Mallamma(Dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the befits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner-Policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required u/s 103 of the Act is not given to the insurer”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled for the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.43750/-(Rupees forty three thousand seven hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.07.2012 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion for formalities e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
