STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 124-125, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, and 5^th Floor, Tower-1, Stellar IT Park, C-25, Sector-62 Noida-201301 through Pankaj Kumar Manager-Legal.

                                                     ……Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Paramjit Singh, resident of House No.2414, BSNL Society, Sector 50, U.T. Chandigarh.
2. Jashan Brar, resident of House No. 452, Sector 46-A, U.T. Chandigarh.

                                                          ....Respondents

3. Swami Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.72, Industrial. Area-1, Chandigarh, through its Director/ Branch Head.

…Proforma respondent

         Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection

               Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:        Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1(in short the OP No.1)  against an order dated 19.8.2016 passed   by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by  respondent No.1& 2/complainants.

2.          As per admitted facts on record, respondent No.1/complainant No.1 purchased a car bearing registration No.CH01AK-0452 from respondent No.2/ complainant No.2 on 26.3.2012. The said car was insured with the appellant/OP No.1 for the period between 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012(midnight) against the Insured Declared Value (IDV) to the tune of Rs.8,02,892/-. Complainant No.1 moved an application to the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh on 29.3.2012 for transfer of ownership of the car in his name.  The requisite fee was deposited against receipt annexure C-3.  On the receipt, a note was given that the new owner may collect the registration certificate on 30.5.2012.  The car met with an accident on 20.5.2012.  It was being driven by a person having valid driving licence.  Intimation was sent to OP No.1. The car was taken to the workshop of respondent No.3/OP NO.3 and an estimate of Rs.6,00,246.48p was issued for repair.  After repair, final bill was raised for an amount of Rs.2,82,000/- on 2.8.2012.  In the meantime, survey of the vehicle was conducted by a surveyor appointed by OP No.1.  Amount towards repair of  car i.e. Rs.2,82,000/- was paid by complainant No.1. Claim raised by complainant No.1 was rejected by OP No.1 stating that on the date of accident i.e. 20.5.2012, the insurance policy had not been transferred from the name of complainant No.2 to the name of complainant No.1, as such he was not having any insurable interest in the car in question. It was positive case of  complainant No.1 that after purchase of the car on 26.3.2012, within 3 days  on 29.3.2012, an application was moved before the competent authority to transfer its ownership. On the receipt issued for deposit of fee, it was mentioned by the concerned officer that the registration certificate may be collected on 30.5.2012. It was stated that before issuance of registration certificate, there was no occasion with complainant No.1 to move an application to OP No.1 to get the insurance policy transferred in his favour.   
3.        Upon notice, reply was filed by Opposite Party No.1 stating that on the date of accident, the insurance policy stood in the name of complainant No.2, previous owner, and complainant No.1 had no insurable interest in the car which met with an accident.  The insurance policy should have been got transferred  in the name of complainant No.1 within stipulated time in terms of provisions of GR17 of the Indian Motor Tariff.

          OP No.2 also filed reply stating that it has nothing to do with the dispute between the complainants and OP No.1.

4.       Both  the parties led evidence. An official of the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh was also called in the witness box, who specifically stated that on the receipt issued qua deposit of fee, a tentative date was given to collect the registration certificate on 30.5.2012.

            The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and arguments raised, partly allowed the complaint granting following relief to complainant No.1 ;

1. To pay Rs. 1,17,685/- to the complainant No.1        towards his claim with interest @9% p.a. from the date of claim till payment.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental agony to the complainant NO.1.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to complainant No.1.

          Further direction was issued to comply with the order passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount awarded was to entail penal interest.

5.          The facts are  not disputed. Complainant No.1 purchased  car on 26.3.2012. As per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, within time, he moved an application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle purchased, on 29.3.2012.  On receipt issued by the concerned official, a tentative date to collect the registration certificate was given as 30.5.2012. The above facts were admitted by an official of the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, before the Forum on 7.10.2013. By noting above facts, it was rightly said by the Forum that there was no occasion with complainant No.1 to go to OP No.1  for transfer of the insurance policy in his name. It is also on record  that registration certificate was received by complainant No.1 on 25.5.2012. In the meantime the car met with an accident on 20.5.2012.

The Forum, when granting relief to complainant No.1, has observed as under ;

“ A bare perusal of  GR17 of the All India Motor Tariff reveals the procedure to be followed by the new owners; that the transferee of the insured vehicle is under obligation to intimate the insurance company & to apply for transfer of insurance with the concerned insurance company within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in his name with a valid proof of the same i.e. within 14 days of the transfer of the registration in his name so that insurer could have made necessary changes in the record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.  

       In the present case there was no occasion available with complainant No.1 to approach OP No.1 for transfer of insurance in his favour as he was not ready with valid proof i.e. the transfer of ownership in his name which was to be supplied by the concerned authority tentatively upto 30.5.2012. In our considered view the insurable interest in the vehicle got created on the very date when the complainant applied for the transfer of the ownership in his name strictly following the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 . Even as per the procedure laid down in GR 17 the complainant was having statutory period of 14 days in his favour to apply for the transfer of the insurance in his name from the date of transfer of vehicle in his name.  It was misfortune on the part of the complainant that before getting the RC, the vehicle met with an accident and as such he could not avail the benefit of 14 days prescribed under the relevant provision discussed above. In such  circumstances the OP No.1 cannot deny the claim of the complainant NO.1 as it has been noted earlier that the insurable interest in favour of the complainant got created on the day when he applied for transfer of ownership by filing all the requisite documents before the concerned authority in adherence to the statutory provisions as discussed above.

       It is duly admitted by OP No.1 that the insurance  claim has been assessed to the tune of Rs.1,17,665/- by the surveyor appointed by OP No.1, whose affidavit has also been tendered alongwith written statement. For the reasons, best known to OP No.1 they had not placed on record copy of the survey report alongwith reply and affidavit filed. Thereafter at a belated stage an application was moved by OP No.1 before this Forum seeking permission to place on record the said survey report, which was dismissed by this Forum vide separate order.

6.         The view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified.  Otherwise also, at the time of arguments, we have seen the insurance policy, which has been placed on record.  Not even a slightest indication has been given by  the appellant/OP No.1 that in  case of transfer of the vehicle, transferee needs to bring this fact to the notice of the insurance company within stipulated period. Some conditions are typed in so small fine print which we could read only with the help of a magnifying glass and even in those conditions, it is not so mentioned. It is desirable for the insurance company to indicate such like condition in bold letters qua requirement of intimation about transfer of ownership so that a buyer/consumer may not suffer in future.

7.        To deny relief to the complainant, at the time of arguments, reliance has been placed upon ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammad Umar  2015(4)CPJ 610. We have gone through the contents of that judgment.  It was given under different set of circumstances. In that case, an attempt was made by the petitioner to raise his claim qua damaged car by  showing him an attorney of the original purchaser.  There was mala-fide on the part of the parties in that case. No such fact is available on record in the present case.  There was no occasion for complainant No.1 to report change of ownership of the vehicle as the Registering Authority had not so ordered.  There may be many reasons on the basis of which, Registering Authority, as per law, may have rejected the application for transfer of ownership. After issuance of Registration Certificate showing change of ownership, it was requisite for complainant No.1 to make request for transfer of insurance policy.  However, before the said time arrived, the car had met with an accident.

8.           In view of the above,   no case is made out by the appellant, to make interference, in the order under challenge.

9.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld. 

10.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

27.10.2016                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                   DEV RAJ)                                                                       MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Js                                                                MEMBER