BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Suman Sharma w/o Sh.Suresh Sharma, aged 47 years, r/o #3072, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

2]      Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.25, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9, Panchkula, through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Satinder Pal, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh.J.P.Nahar, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant, after purchasing Maruti Car bearing Regd. No.CH-03-P-1237 from Ms.Tripta Chopra, got it transferred in his name from Registering Authority, Chandigarh vide Annexure C-1.  The said car, when purchased, was comprehensively insured with OP Company vide Annexure C-2 from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010. 

                   Unfortunately, the car was stolen from Sector 10, Chandigarh, regarding which an F.I.R. No.205, dated 13.12.2009 under section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.  The theft was also reported to OP Insurance Company vide Annexure C-4, whereupon M/s. Royal Associates, Kurukshetra, was deputed to investigate the matter, who were provided with all requisite documents vide letters – Annexures C-5 & C-6.  Intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was also given to Registering Authority, Chandigarh.  But despite all that, the OPs did not send any intimation to the complainant about his claim.  It is averred that the complainant later on came to know from previous owner of the car Ms.Tripta Chopra that she received some letter from OP Company.  The complainant ultimately got the letter dated 25.3.2010 – Annexure C-8 issued by OP No.1 with regard to claim of vehicle in question, qua which the claim had been repudiated as “No claim”. Thereafter, complainant received Untraceable Report, dated 3.12.2011, from Police Authorities.  Alleging the above repudiation as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the present complaint has been filed.   

2.                OPs filed joint reply, stating therein, that at the time, when the vehicle was stolen, it was insured with them in the name of Ms.Tripta Chopra (Annexure R-4) and not in the name of complainant, so the complainant having no insurable interest, is not entitled for any claim. It is stated that M/s Royal Associates, Investigating & Detective Agency, Kurukshetra, in their report dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure R-1), have mentioned that the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 3.11.2009, whereas the complainant in her statement dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure R-2) stated that she got the RC transferred in her name in November, 2009.  It is submitted that the insurance policy stood in the name of Ms.Tripta Chopra, the previous owner of the vehicle, so the OP Company is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant has not complied with GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff by getting the insurance policy transferred in her name.  Denying rest of the allegations of the complainant and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is the owner of car bearing Regd. No.CH-03-P-1237. She purchased the said car from Ms.Tripta Chopra and, thereafter, got it transferred in her name from Registering Authority, Chandigarh.  The said car was comprehensively insured with the Insurance Company from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010 – Annexure C-2.  The car was stolen from Sector 10, Chandigarh and F.I.R. No.205, dated 13.12.2009 -  Annexure C-3 was registered in Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.  The intimation was also given to the OPs vide Annexure C-4. It was lastly argued that the OPs vide repudiation letter dated 25.3.2010 – Annexure C-8 repudiated the claim as “No Claim”. The repudiation of the claim is stated to be arbitrary and illegal.

6.                The learned Counsel for the OPs raised the arguments that the car in question was insured in the name of Ms.Tripta Chopra and not in the name of the complainant. Thus, the complainant having no insurable interest, is not entitled for any claim. It was lastly argued that the complainant has not complied with GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff by getting the insurance policy transferred in her name.  The repudiation of the claim is stated to be legal.   

7.                The other facts are admitted. The only point for consideration before this Forum is whether the repudiation of the claim is legal. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

8.                The repudiation letter is Annexure C-8 and its relevant portion is reproduced as under :-

“RC of the vehicle was transferred in the name of Smt.Suman Sharma on 3.11.2009 but the insurance stands in the name of previous owner.”

The complainant has produced on record the copy of the cover note – Annexure C-2 and the policy – Annexure R-4 has been placed on record by the OPs. In the said cover note – Annexure C-2 under the column ‘Name and address of insured’, “Ms.Tripta Chopra, # 139/1, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh” has been recorded. The complainant has not produced any other evidence on the file to prove that she got the insurance policy transferred in her name till date.

9.                GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act provides that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery of the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of  Insurance.

10.              In terms of the said regulation, the transferee has to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes and issue of fresh Certificate of Insurance.

11.              Regarding the scope of Section 157 vis-vis insurance liability, the deemed transfer under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act is restricted to third party risks and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured which falls outside Chapter XI of the new Act, for which, there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee.

12.              In the instant case, since the insurance policy stands in the name of the previous owner, Smt.Suman Sharma, therefore, it is held that the complainant has got no insurable interest and the repudiation of the claim is legal and justified. Reliance placed on M/s United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Goli Sridhar & Anr., Revision Petition No.2964 of 2007 decided on 22.11.2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission.

13.              As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the repudiation of the claim by the OPs is legal and justified. Consequently, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

14.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.