DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:341 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 01.06.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 03.06.2011

                                                 ----------------------------------------------

Smt. Pooja Rani wife of Sh. Gulshan Kumar resident of Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Abhishek Dogra, Advocate proxy for

                   Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Pooja Rani has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to the OP: -

i)                   To pay an amount of Rs.29,471/- along with interest @12% per annum to the complainant;

ii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP;

iii)              To pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a used car bearing Registration No.CH-04-C-2392 from one Susheel Kumar. Soon thereafter, she applied for the transfer of the registration of the said car in her name. The said car was duly transferred in her name and the registration certificate was delivered to hear on 8.2.2010. It has further been pleaded that the said vehicle was already insured with the OP in the name of the previous owner i.e. Susheel Kumar. The complainant was required to apply for the transfer of the said insurance in her favour within 14 days from the date of transfer of registration. Unfortunately, an electric pole fell on the car resulting into damage to the vehicle. She gave all the details, regarding the vehicle and the damage caused to it, to OP. A surveyor was appointed who visited the spot and inspected the vehicle. As per the directions given by the surveyor, the complainant got the said car repaired and spent a sum of Rs.29,471/- on it. According to the complainant, to her utter surprise, OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim, according to the complainant, is illegal and unjustified. It amounts to deficiency in service.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the written statement filed by the OP, it has been admitted that Sh. Susheel Kumar was the owner of the car and he had got the said car insured for the period from 21.3.2009 to 21.3.2010. It has also been admitted that Sh. Susheel Kumar sold the said car to the complainant and the registration was transferred in favour of the complainant on 3.2.2010. The accident, according to the OP, occurred on 11.2.2010. According to the OP, the complainant was required to apply for transfer of the insurance of the vehicle within 14 days of its registration. However, no such application was received before the accident. In these circumstances, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant was having no insurable interest. However, an option was given to the complainant to submit the details about the grounds on which he is requiring the OP to pay the claim to her regarding the damage to the said car. The complainant failed to reply to the said letter. In these circumstances, according to the OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

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

5.             Admittedly, Sh. Susheel Kumar was the owner of the car and the said car was insured in his name for the period from 21.3.2009 to 20.3.2010. The complainant purchased the said car from Sh. Susheel Kumar and the Registration Certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant on 3.2.2010 as is evident from Fee Receipt No.BJ610 (Annexure C-1) as well as copy of the Registration Certificate (Annexure C-2). To this effect, there is also on record affidavit of Sh. Susheel Kumar, previous owner marked as Annexure C-4.

6.                Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as M. V. Act) reads as under: -

“157. Transfer of certificate of insurance. – (1) xxxxx

(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance..”

7.                The only question which needs to be settled is whether the complainant applied for the transfer of the insurance policy within the stipulated time as provided under Section 157 of the M. V. Act?

8.                There is no dispute as regards the transfer of the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant, which was transferred on 3.2.2010, as discussed earlier.

9.                To clinch this issue, the copies of Reliance Motor Private Car Endorsement Schedules issued by both Chandigarh and Patiala Branch of Insurance Company placed on record by both the complainant as well as the OPs are to be critically examined. Annexures C-5 and C-6 are the copies of Reliance Motor Private Care Endorsement Schedule issued by the Chandigarh office of Insurance Company wherein the effective date of endorsement is mentioned as 11/02/2010 and the insurance policy No.2010782311004752 was transferred in the name of the complainant from this date. In both the schedules, the registration number of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as HP03A2501 instead of CH04C2392 where as the other particulars such as Make, Model, Engine & Chassis Number is the same. Similarly, in the Endorsement Schedule issued by the Patiala Branch of the Insurance Company, which is placed on record by the OP along with its reply, the registration number was again wrongly mentioned as HR03A2501 but the effective date of Endorsement was mentioned as 11/02/2010 as endorsed by the Chandigarh Office. All these three documents were issued on 05/03/2010.

10.              Subsequently, to rectify the mistake of registration number of the vehicle, the Patiala Office issued another Endorsement Schedule (Annexure C-7) wherein the registration number of the vehicle was correctly mentioned as CH04C2392 but in this document, the effective date of endorsement was mentioned as 05/03/2010. It seems that the Insurance Company while issuing the endorsement schedule having the correct registration number, inadvertently mentioned the effective date of endorsement to be as 05/03/2010 instead of 11/02/2010. Due to this oversight in mentioning the effective date of endorsement, the OP also took the effective date of transfer of insurance policy in the name of the complainant to be as 05/03/2010 instead of 11/02/2010. In our view, the insurance company cannot change the effective date of endorsement subsequently, once it is already ready as 11/02/2010 in earlier three endorsement schedules issued by both Chandigarh and Patiala office. The only mistake, which the insurance company could rectify was as regards to the registration number of the vehicle in question and not the effective date of endorsement.

11.              Thus, in our considered view, this wrong mentioning in the endorsement schedule led to the whole confusion in the mind of the OP in settling the insurance claim of the complainant. The OP took the effective date of endorsement as 05/03/2010 where as it should have considered the date to be 11/02/2010. The dispute in the endorsement schedules earlier issued was only in regard to the registration number and subsequently, the intention was for not to give the genuine claim of the complainant, OP took the effective date of endorsement to be as 05/03/2010. Thus, due to the mistake on the part of insurance company in mentioning the effective date of endorsement in the endorsement schedule, the rightful claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that she was not having any insurable interest on the date of the accident. The accident took place on 11/02/2010 and the insurance policy was itself transferred in her name as is clearly apparent from the endorsement schedules marked as Annexures C-5 and C-6 issued by the Chandigarh Branch and the endorsement schedule issued by the Patiala Branch on 05/03/2010.

12.              Accordingly, the complainant was having insurable interest on the date of accident i.e.11/02/2010 as the insurance policy stood transferred in her name on that date, as discussed above. Thus, the repudiation of the claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

13.              Now coming to the quantum of the liability of the OP, the surveyor vide his surveyor report has assessed the insured’s liability to the tune of Rs.12,971. The complainant had submitted a claim of Rs.29,471/- and out of this amount, the surveyor has deducted a sum of Rs.16,500/- on account of total labour including taxes, excess clause and salvage. The surveyor has not filed his affidavit in support of his report whereas the complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that she spent an amount of Rs.29,471/- for getting the vehicle repaired vide Bills (Annexures C-9 and C-10). Moreover, the surveyor has straight away deducted an amount of Rs.13,500/- on account of labour including taxes but there is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant did not pay this amount as labour charges including taxes. Thus, the surveyors report cannot be relied upon as it is not based on any cogent and concrete investigation and documentation.

14.              In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OP to:-

i)                   To pay an amount of Rs.29,471/- to the complainant  in order to indemnify the loss caused to her due to the accident.

ii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment;

iii)              To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation.

                This order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.39,471/- i.e. [Rs.29,471 + Rs.10,000]along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.01.06.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

15.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced.

3^rd June 2011.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.341 of   2010

Argued By: None.

.

                                                          ---

                   The case was reserved on 20.05.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

03.06.2011       Member           President          Member