Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/99/2015

WMW Metal Febrics Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Orintal Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jitendra Mitruka

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 99/2015

 

W.M.W. Metal Fabrics Ltd., 53 Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Saraf House, M.I.Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 20.12.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Jitendra Mitruka counsel for the complainant

Mr.Prashant Mantri counsel for the non-applicant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This original complaint has been filed with the contention that complainant company is a Limited Company.

2

 

Complainant No.2 is the registered owner of vehicle no. RJ 45 CA 0446 and complainant no.1 has purchased the vehicle vide invoice no. 5605 dated 12.3.2015. Formalities for change of registration were submitted before the concerned RTO office and information of sale has also been intimated to the insurance company. Thereafter on 21.3.2015 premium was sent to the insurance company by the complainant no.1 inspite of this the insurance was issued in the name of complainant no.2 who was registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle got accidented on 7.5.2015. The estimated cost for repair quoted by authorized service centre Sanga Automotive is Rs. 21,36,572/-. The complainant no.1 filed a claim before the concerned insurance company but claim has not been settled in favour of any of the complainant. Hence, complaint has been filed for the compensation of Rs.21,36,572/- as cost of the repairs and other compensations have also been asked for.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that as complainant no.2 has sold the vehicle to complainant no.1 hence, the complainant no.2 is not having any insurable interest in the vehicle and insurance company has no privity of contract with the complainant no.1 and claim could not be allowed. The other contention of the non-applicant is that insured declared

3

 

value of the vehicle is only Rs. 14,15,780/- hence, the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and further more the sale amount of the vehicle is only Rs.11,26,475/- and only to seek the jurisdiction of the Commission an inflated claim has been filed which should have been rejected.

 

During course of proceedings a separate application has also been filed as regard to pecuniary jurisdiction which is also heard alongwith the final arguments. Both the parties have submitted affidavits and documents to support their contention.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that complainant no.2 is registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased by complainant no.1 on 12.3.2015. Intimation was given to the insurance company on 21.3.2015 but till date registration was not transferred in the name of complainant no.1 and hence, the insurance policy has been issued in the name of registered owner i.e, complainant no.2.

 

4

 

The contention of the complainant is that they have intimated the fact of sale to the insurance company as well as to the RTO office. Hence, they have fully completed their part and claim should have been allowed in the name of complainant no.1.

 

It is not in dispute that the claim has been submitted by complainant no.1. The complainant has relied upon (2008) 4 CPR (NC) 19 Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Tanuram Mahanta where facts were quite distinct as the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the purchaser on the date of accident which is not the case here. The complainant has also relied upon (2014) 4 CPR (NC) 815 New India Assurance Co. Vs. Mohd.Faiyaz Khan where looking to the peculiar and distinct facts claim has been allowed which is not the case here. Further more reliance has been placed on 2007 DNJ (CC) 1 Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. where looking to the facts claim has been allowed but non-applicant has rightly placed reliance on II (2014) CPJ 99 (NC) Ram Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. where the National Commission has categorically held that when insurance policy stands in the name of original owner the purchaser has no

 

5

 

insurable interest and original owner is not entitled to get claim because he has already sold the vehicle.

 

Further reliance has been placed on 2015 NCJ 166 (NC) Garwar Construction Company Vs. United India Insurance Co. where the National Commission has held that when complainant has no insurable interest, he cannot file the claim. Here in the present case the registered owner and insured complainant no.2 has not filed any claim and complainant no.1 who has no privity of contract with the insurance company has filed the claim which is not maintainable. Further reliance has been placed on II (2016) CPJ 592 (NC) Mohd. Ishakbhai Timbiwala Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. and Revision Petition No. 129 of 2009 United India Insurance Co. Vs. Dada Miyan, Revision Petition No. 118/2013 National Insurance Co. Vs. Jai Bhagwan, IV (2015) CPJ 337 (NC) Buddhi Prakash Jain Vs. Bajaj Alliaz General Insurance where on the same principle claim were not entertained. Here in the present case facts are quite similar. Complainant no.2 who is the registered owner of the vehicle has no insurable interest in the vehicle as he has already sold the vehicle so also complainant no.1 is not having any privity of contract with the insurance company as

 

6

 

registered owner is complainant no.2 and policy also stands in his name.

 

It is true that on 23.3.2015 the complainant no.1 has informed the insurance company about the purchase of the vehicle but till date registration was not transferred in the name of complainant no.1 and admittedly it was transferred on 4.4.2015 and thereafter in compliance of GR 17 no intimation has been given to the insurance company. Hence, when compliance has not been made of the relevant provisions, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim and in view of the above this complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

Further contention of the non-applicant is that to seek the jurisdiction of this Commission an inflated claim has been submitted. As per complainant the cost of repair is estimated as Rs.21,36,572/- whereas as per admitted case of the complainant the vehicle was purchased by complainant no.1 at the value of Rs.11,26,475/- and other compensations were also asked for but in any case it could not be exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum. The IDV value of the vehicle is also Rs. 14,15,780/- and non-applicant has rightly relied upon IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage

7

 

International where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.”

 

 

The non-applicant has further relied upon II (2014) CPJ 658 (NC) Consumer Welfare Association Vs. WEBB Hill Resort Corporation.

 

In view of the above the complaint is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and highly inflated claim has been lodged just to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, in view of the above

8

 

this complaint is also liable to be rejected on this ground also.

 

In view of above discussion the complaint deserves to be dismissed and hence, dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm