Haryana

Kurukshetra

138/2017

Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.Wadhwa

14 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.138 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.07.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:14.11.2018.

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mahender Lal, R/o near Old Gurudwara, Nigdhu, Butana, Karnal, Haryana, India.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Hero Moto Corp Vertical, Delhi, 803-A, 8^th Floor Tower-C, Konnectus Building, Opposite New Delhi, Railway Station, Bhavbhuti Marg, New Delhi-110002 having its Branch Office at Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.  

….Respondent.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. R.S.Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. A.L.Madan, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajesh Kumar against National Insurance Company, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07N-2714 from Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, R/o VPO Kalsana, Distt. Kurukshetra.  It is alleged that during the process regarding transfer of the said vehicle, the said vehicle was theft and the said vehicle could not transfer in the name of complainant.  It is further alleged that the said vehicle was got insured for a sum of Rs.22,100/- vide policy No.39010231156202140359 valid for the period w.e.f. 04.09.2015 go 03.09.2016 with the Op.  It is further alleged that on 07.06.2016 the said vehicle was stolen from the area of Jindal Park, Thanesar.  It is further alleged that the information regarding theft of motor-cycle in question was given to the Op and all the necessary documents were submitted but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay Rs.22,100/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant is neither the registered owner of motor cycle in question nor the complainant is the insured person of the motor-cycle in question on the alleged date of theft of the said motor-cycle, as such, there is no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the parties; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.             On the other hand, the counsel of Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant purchased the motor-cycle in question from Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar, R/o VPO Kalsana, Distt. Kurukshetra and during the process regarding transfer of the said vehicle, the same was theft and the said vehicle could not transfer in the name of complainant.  Information regarding theft of vehicle was given to the Op.  The claim was lodged by Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim vide letter Ex.C6.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op contended that the complainant is neither the registered owner of the motor-cycle in question nor the complainant is insured person of alleged motor-cycle in question.  He further contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Op, so, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Learned counsel for the Ops also placed reliance upon the case titled as Shri Shivaji Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing revision petition No.1327 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 23.07.2012, wherein it has been held that “In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle.  Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in not settling the claim”.  Similarly, the counsel of Op also placed reliance upon the case law titled as Sandeep Gupta Vs. UII, bearing revision petition No.2355 of 2012 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 14.02.2014, wherein it has been held that “In the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission, we are of the view that if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in case of own damage of the vehicle”. 

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased the motor-cycle in question from Ajay Kumar, r/o VPO Kalsana, Tehsil Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra and the said motor-cycle was theft.  From the record, it is clear that the complainant was neither the registered owner of the motor-cycle in question nor he got transferred the insurance in his name.  So, we find that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties.  Hence, we found force in the contention of Op that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of alleged theft.  The authorities submitted by the counsel of Op are fully applicable to the facts of instant case.  Hence, we find no deficiency on the part of Op.

10.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:14.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.