DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/264/2016
Ashok Kumar Buwaniwala
S/o Sh. Bhagirath Mal Buwaniwala
R/o H – 3, Shivaji Park,
West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi - 110026
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Service Center (NRO – 2)
AE/14, Jhandewalan Extn.,
Ground Floor, Azad Bhawan, Delhi - 110055
..…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Coram: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint was filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) by Ashok Kumar Buwaniwala (in short the complainant) inter alia pleading therein that he had taken an insurance policy for his car make i.e. Tata Safari, bearing registration no. DL – 5CG 1336 (in short the vehicle) from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (in short OP) vide policy no. 121500/31/2014/01/50021735 which was effective from 05.12.2013 to 04.12.2014.
On 13.04.2014 a friend of the complainant namely Mr. Jai Ghosh Dwivedi visited the complainant’s house to meet himand while going back the Complainant’s friend took his vehicle due to late hours.
Mr. Jai Ghosh Dwivedi parked the vehicle at his house bearing no. B 107 – A, Sector – 27, NOIDA, U.P. at about 11: 00 P.M. It was stolen from the parking place on the night of 13.04.2014.
Immediately on coming to know about the theft of the vehicle in the morning of 14.04.2014, Sh. Jai Ghosh Dwivedi informed the complainant about theft of the vehicle. Sh. Dwivedi lodged an F.I.R. No. 436/2014 U/s 379 IPC with Sector – 20, Noida Police Station and also intimated the OP about theft of the vehicle on the next day, i.e. 15.04.2014.
OP appointed Royal Associates as the surveyor and their representative Shri Naveen Tyagi visited the complainant who provided him with all the required documents including the copy of the F.I.R.
The complainant received a letter dated 13.08.2014 from the surveyor and also a reminder dated 30.10.2014 with a direction to clarify within 10 days as to why Mr. Jai Ghosh Dwivedi had claimed in the F.I.R that he is the owner of the stolen vehicle.
Shri Jai Ghosh Dwivedigave proper reply vide communication dated 29.10.2014 to the OP.
Complainant was however surprised to receive letter dated 30.10.2014 from the OP vide which his claim was repudiated arbitrarily and mechanically without assigning sufficient cause.
Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay him the insured declared value Rs. 5,22,000/, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- as legal expenses.
2. OP contested the claim vide its written statement. It is pleaded in the reply that claim was not lodged by the complainant. It was lodged by Shri Jai Ghosh Dwivedi vide Motor Claim Form dated 06/05/2014. It is also stated that even claim intimation was given by the said person and not the complainant himself. Further it is pleaded that OP deputed M/s. Royal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency to investigate the theft claim. The said investigating agency submitted their investigation Report dated 05/08/2014 to the OP which revealed that as per the written statement of the complainant he had sold the vehicle in question to Mr. Jai Ghosh Dwivedi about one year ago. Jai Ghosh was looking after the vehicle and that the vehicle was stolen from outside house of Jai Ghosh. It is further stated that Investigating Agency in their Investigation Report, which is based on written statement of complainant, eye witnesses and neighbours, concluded that Shri Jai Ghosh was the actual owner of the Vehicle but RC and Insurance Policy continued in the name of Ashok Kumar Buwaniwala and were not transferred in the name of actual owner Jai Ghosh Dwivedi. It is stated that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle insured under the subject policy of insurance and therefore the claim filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
3. Both sides adduced evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard Charan Singh Counsel for complainant and Shri R.K. Chibbar counsel for OP.
4. Copy of theft claim intimation letter dated 15/04/2014 is on record which bears signatures of Jai Ghosh. Motor Claim Form dated 06/05/2014 was submitted by Jai Ghosh. He signed the same as Insured.
5. Reference may also be made to Investigation Report copy whereof is on record where reference is made to written statement of the insured Mr. Ashok Buwaniwala which runs as under:
‘‘Mr. Ashok Kumar Buwaniwala S/o Sh. Bhagirath Mal Buwaniwala R/o H-3, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi is a businessman. He had one white colour Tata Safari no. DL-5CG-1336. He sold it to Mr. Jai Ghosh Devidi about one year before. Jai Ghosh is looking after the vehicle. Said Safari was stolen from the outside house of Jai Ghosh. Claim should be settled as earliest.’’
In the said Investigation Report reference is also made to written statement of ‘‘eye witness and neighbour’’which
run as under :
Mr. Pushpinder Tuli S/o Sh. B.L. Tuli
‘‘Mr. Pushpinder Tuli S/o Sh. B.L. Tuli R/o B – 108, Sec. Noida confired that he knows very well his neighbourer Sh. Jai Ghosh. He had one white coloured Tata Safari. Said Tata Safari was stolen from infront of house of Jai Ghosh on 13-14/04/2014 at night.’’
Ms. Shifali D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
‘‘Ms. Shifali D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o B -107-B, Sec. 27, Noida, Distt. Budh Nagar. She knows very well to Mr. Jai Ghosh Deviedi. He had one Tata Safari white coloured. Same was stolen on 13-14/04/2014 at night from the outside of his house.’’
Statement of Jai GhsohDvivediS/o Sh. AnadBhagwanis also referred in the Investigation Report :
‘‘Mr. Jai Ghosh Devidi S/o Sh. Anand Bhagwan R/o B-107 A, Sec. 27, Noida, Distt. Budh Nagar is a businessman. He had one pearl white coloured Tata Safari no. DL-5CG-1336, model 2010, it is registered in the name of his friend. Ashok Buwaniwal. He used the Tata Safari for personal use. Tata Safari last time serviced from Raghuvani Motors, Shahdra about 3-4 months before from them. On 12-13/2014 Tata Safari was used in Delhi local. On 13/04/2014 at about 10 PM he parked Tata Safari in front of his house on road
side and went inside his house. He saw the Tata Safari there at about 1: 30 AM. On 14/04/2014 at about 4:43 AM when he wake up for natural call, Tata Safari was found stolen from there. He searched for the Tata Safari here and therebut in vain. He made a phone call on 100 number and informed police control room. Police came on the spot and investigated the matter. He went to Sec. 20 police station and lodged FIR on 15/04/2014. All original papers and both original keys are lying with him. He gave information to Ins. Office on 15/04/2014. He will deposit all papers and both keys in the office of Ins. Co.’’
6. In Ram Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 99 Hon’ble National Commission held that registered owner is left with no insurable interest in case he had sold the vehicle. It was observed that even if registration of vehicle stands in name of original owner and insurance policy is also in his name, he shall not be entitled to get claim because he has already declared in an appropriate proforma that he had sold the vehicle. It was observed that there cannot be deemed transfer in favour of purchaser and thus repudiation was justified.
7. In Didar Singh &Anr. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2014) CPJ 1 Hon’ble (National Commission) again held that when Vehicle was not transferred in the name of the purchaser after sale of vehicle, handing over of possession amounts, to sale and it was obligatory to get the insurance transferred and that provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act were not complied with so repudiation was justified.
8. In view of the aforesaid complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 28th day of Sept. 2020.
