Present:   

          For the appellant : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate

          For respondent   : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate

MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER:-

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda, (in short "District Forum'), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short "the Act") was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.3,70,000/- to him with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 04.01.2013 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount of Rs.3,70,000/-, plus interest was to carry further interest @ 9% per annum till realization and to pay Rs.20,000/-, as cost and compensation.

2.                Brief facts, stated in the complaint, are that Ram Singh, purchased the vehicle make Toyota Fortuner Modal 2009 bearing Registration No.PB-10-CT-0786 from Manpreet Singh Badal, on 21.09.2012 and the registration of the above said vehicle was duly transferred in his name on the same day i.e. 21.09.2012. 21.09.2012 was Friday and thereafter, Saturday & Sunday i.e. 22.09.2012 and 23.09.2012, respectively, were Government holidays and being holidays the office of opposite party was also closed. As such, the RC was delivered to him on 24.09.2012 (Monday). The car was duly insured comprehensively with the opposite party, vide cover note no. 085574 dated 04.12.2010 for the IDV of Rs. 14,90,000/-. The opposite party never supplied any policy along with terms and conditions to him. The car met with an accident on 04.10.2012 within 11 days from the date of receiving the transferred RC in his name. The DDR was duly lodged with the police on 05.10.2012. As per Indian Motor Tariff GR-17, on transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. from the date of transfer, and the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who had insured the vehicle with the details of the registration of vehicle, date of transfer of vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. It was on the record that the RC had been transferred on 21.09.2012 and was handed over to complainant on 24.09.2012 and the accident took place on 04.10.2012 within 11 days. As such, the accident took place within 14 days of grace period and as per GR-17 the insurance is deemed to have been transferred in favour of person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. the date of transfer. He further pleaded that after the accident he immediately informed the opposite party about the accident, and it appointed the spot surveyor from Bathinda. The vehicle was shifted to M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Radiant Toyota), Bathinda, which was the authorised service centre of the opposite party, as per their instructions. Thereafter, the opposite party appointed final surveyor, who surveyed the vehicle at M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. and also checked the original registration certificate, driving licence and insurance cover note. He also took the original estimates from the workshop directly. The final surveyor also got his signature on Blank Claim Form, Blank Consent Letter, Blank Full and Final Voucher and on other blank forms with the assurance that the entire claim will be paid after repairs and depreciation as per GR-9. Finally, the vehicle was repaired on 08.11.2012 and M/s. Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. Bathinda, prepared final bill to the tune of Rs. 5,32,313/-. The original bill was duly supplied to the opposite party. Neither the surveyor nor the opposite party sent the survey report, which was mandatory. The complainant used to enquire about his claim from the office of opposite party but all in vain. After 9 months and 20 days, it issued illegal "No claim" letter dated 24.07.2013, vide which it rejected his genuine claim under rule of transfer i.e. GR-17. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Ultimately, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking the following directions to opposite party :-

(i) to pay Rs. 5,32,313/-, on account of loss of his car and Rs.3,500/- on account of crane charges, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum;

(ii) to pay Rs.1 lac, as compensation on account of mental agony; and

(iii) to pay Rs. 50,000/-, as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice the written reply was filed by the opposite party in which it took the preliminary objections that the vehicle was purchased on 21.09.2012 and it met with an accident on 04.10.2012 and till then no intimation or request for transfer of Insurance policy, as per mandatory provision and requirement of Section 157 of Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, in the prescribed form was given by the complainant to it. There can be no deemed transfer of ownership of vehicle in case of own damage (OD), as available in third party case. The opposite party has rightly, legally and as per rules and regulations and provisions of law declared the claim in question as "No Claim". There was no privity of contract between the parties to this case, regarding the vehicle or insurance policy in question. Complainant was not its Consumer on the date of accident in question. The complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and in the absence of actual owner, all the points in controversy between the parties cannot be properly adjudicated upon. It pleaded that complainant violated the basic and mandatory provisions of law. There is no grace period of 14 days for applying for the transferee of policy. Rather, it is the period within which one should apply in the prescribed proforma to the insurer and make request for transfer of policy in the name of alleged transferee, and also deposit the mandatory fee for the same with the insurer. Only then, the case for transfer of policy can be considered, but in the present case neither any application was given within statutory period of 14 days nor any such fee was deposited. The complainant concealed true and material facts from District Forum and has not come with clean hands and, as such, is not entitled to any claim. As per the statement of complainant dated 26.10.2012,  the vehicle in question was purchased by him in August 2012, but the photostat copies of the purchase affidavit and sale affidavit supplied by him to the surveyor are dated 17.09.2012 and, as such, the transfer of Insurance cover should have been reported to the opposite parties, within fortnight, from the date of purchase i.e. August 2012, which was not done nor has been disclosed in the complaint. The complainant had also given an affidavit dated 15.10.2012 admitting that in the alleged accident dated 04.10.2012 no loss of life or property has taken place and if there will be any such loss, he will be personally liable for the same. There is no deficiency on its part as alleged in complaint. Complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the complaint. The allegations of  the complainant and opposite party can only be properly and judiciously adjudicated upon, if both the parties to the case are allowed to adduce lengthy oral witnesses as well as documentary evidence and also experts in the matter and also by allowing them to cross-examine, as per the facts of the case to extract the truth from them. As the proceedings under the Act being of summary nature, so the procedure applicable in Civil Suit cannot be adopted in the present complaint, before the District Forum. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint it prayed for dismissal of the complaint; being false and frivolous.

4.                Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6.                It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellate/opposite party that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the accident, as he failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his favour within the prescribed period, in spite of the fact that the ownership thereof had been transferred in his name. In order to make the insurance company liable he was required to get the insurance policy transferred in his name within the prescribed period of 14 days as per GR-17. The claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. The finding recorded in favour of the complainant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, order of the District Forum be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.

7.                On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent that the District Forum has correctly concluded that the vehicle met with an accident before 14 days and, as such, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, the owner of the car in question was not having insurable interest, is not tenable. There is no reason to upset the well reasoned findings of the District Forum. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

8.                The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 21.09.2012 from Manpreet Singh Badal and according to him, the accident took place on 04.10.2012. The insurance policy of the vehicle was proved on record as Ex.C-2. This policy was valid from 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2011. This insurance policy was obtained by the previous owner, Sh. Manpreet Singh Badal.

9.                No doubt, as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Policy of the vehicle is deemed to have been transferred in the name of transferee of the vehicle but the provisions of that Section are applicable only in third party case. After framing of G.R-17 there was no automatic transfer of the Insurance Policy and the purchaser of the vehicle was required to apply for the transfer thereof after the transfer of the vehicle in his name, within 14 days.

10.              The Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition no. 221 of 2006 decided on 29.01.2010 (Dharmindra Nath Thakur and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.) upheld the findings of the State Commission that the original owner had left with no insurable interest after the sale of the vehicle and, as such, could not have lodged the complaint against the insurance company. It was also held that the purchaser was not entitled to any such compensation from the insurer as he failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name, though GR-17 required that he was to apply for transfer of the policy within 14 days of the transfer of the registration in writing.

11.              He neither contended in his complaint nor produced any evidence for proving that he had applied to the opposite party for the transfer of insurance policy in his name, within 14 days of the transferee of the registration of the vehicle.  As the complainant never applied for transfer of insurance policy in his name though, the vehicle had been transferred in his name, so no liability can be fastened to the opposite party. The District Forum wrongly held that the car met with an accident before 14 days as the date of transfer of vehicle is 21.09.2012 and the accident occurred on 04.10.2012 i.e. on fourteenth day of the transfer of the vehicle. So the finding recorded in favour of the complainant and against the Insurance Company and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.

12.              The sum of Rs.25,000/-, was deposited by the appellant/opposite party on 27.03.2014 at the time of filing of the appeal. It further deposited the sum of Rs. 1,91,946/- on 17.04.2014 in compliance of the order dated 09.04.2014. Both these amounts along with interest which has been accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/Insurance Company by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copies of the order to the parties.

13               The arguments in this case were heard on 23.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to the heavy pendency of Court cases. 

February    20,2015