Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/273/2014

Satpal s/o Sh.Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.273 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.06.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 11.10.2017.

Satpal, age 29 years, s/o Sh. Madan Lal, r/o Village & Post Office Bhudkalan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., near Hindu Girls School, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental House A-2527, Asafali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its General Manager.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, for complainant.   

                 Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                The complainant-Satpal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased an old Tata Indica DLE EN bearing registration No.HR-02-U-3020, Model-2009 from one Purshotam Dass Sharma and the previous owner of aforesaid vehicle got insured the said vehicle with the Ops vide policy No.261701/31/2013/11402 valid w.e.f. 19.02.2013 to 18.02.2014.  It is alleged that during the subsistence of the policy, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 06.01.2014 and the said vehicle was fully damaged in the accident.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that on receipt of intimation regarding accident, the Ops company deputed Sh. Amarjot Singh Anand, an independent surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey and the said surveyor submitted his report dt. 27.01.2014 to the insurance company and the said surveyor mentioned in his report that the car in question was transferred in the name of Satpal w.e.f. 29.04.2013 in the Registration Certificate but the insurance was still in the name of previous owner Sh. Parshottam Dass Sharma.  So, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Ops company, which is a mandatory condition for settlement of any claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Annexure-RW/A to Annexure-RwC alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.    

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

7.             After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is that whether the complainant is entitled for claim or not?

                The version of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in question from one Purshotam Dass Sharma and the previous owner of  vehicle in question got insured the said vehicle with the Ops vide policy No.261701/31/2013/11402 valid w.e.f. 19.02.2013 to 18.02.2014.  During the subsistence of the policy, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 06.01.2014 and the said vehicle was fully damaged in the accident.  The grievance of the complainant is that he lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant and the said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted case law cited in 2017(1) RCR (Civil) page 128 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. Abhisheck Kumar and another, wherein it was held that ”Theft of vehicle-Original owner of the vehicle was insurance policy holder-Original policy-holder sold the vehicle in favour of respondent No.1-Theft of the vehicle during currency of the insurance policy-Transferee will step into the shoes of transferor including regarding benefit of insurance policy.” 

           On the other hand, the plea of the Ops is that the car in question was transferred in the name of Satpal w.e.f. 29.04.2013 in the Registration Certificate but the insurance was still in the name of previous owner Sh. Parshottam Dass Sharma.  So, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Ops company, which is a mandatory condition for settlement of any claim.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted case law cited in 1996(1) PLR page 202 (SC) titled as M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. NIA, wherein it has been held that “Comprehensive policy-own damage-Failure of Insurance Company to transfer the vehicle-Since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee-The insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted the case law cited in 2014(3) CLT page 345 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jai Bhagwan, decided by Hon’ble National Commission; wherein it is held that the petitioner insurance company was well within its right to repudiate the claim on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also submitted some copies of orders bearing revision petition No.1528 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.10.2011 titled as NIA Vs. Dalip Kumar; revision petition No.4387 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble National Commission titled as NIA Vs. Chandrakant Bhujangres Jogdand and revision petition No.426 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.03.2009 titled as UII Vs. Sri V.C. Deen Dayal etc.     

8.             In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that no doubt, the complainant is owner of the car bearing registration No.HR-02-U-3020, as is clear from copy of RC (Annexure-C2) but he has not got transferred the insurance policy in his name.  The copy of policy placed on the file by the complainant as Annexure-C3 clearly shows that the same was in the name of Parshotam Dass Sharma S/o Sh. Shiv Ram Sharma.  The complainant has not placed any document on file which could prove that the insurance policy was transferred in his name.  Moreover, no such document has been placed on the file to prove that the complainant has applied for transfer of insurance policy within 14 days from the transfer of vehicle in his name.  There is nothing on the record to suggest that the consent of previous owner was obtained for transfer of the policy.  Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company.  The law laid down in the authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of this case in the light of aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission.  The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the Ops are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.  Thus, the Ops are well within their right to decline the claim of complainant in the present case.   

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

Announced in open court:

Dated: 11.10.2017.

                                                          (SATPAL)

                                                          PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER