West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/77/2014

Sri Haru Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.77/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 31/12/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Paul,  Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. P. Sengupta, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Haru Rana, S/o Niranjan Rana, residing at Ramchandrapur, P.O. Jorakhali, P.S. Jhargram,  Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its office at Reliance Centre 19, Hirachand Marg, Bailard Estate, Mumbai-400001, &

2)Branch Office at Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st Floor, MS-Tower, O.T. Road, Kharagpur,  Dist- Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Haru Rana, in short, is that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.WB34-Y/7554, under coverage of Insurance Policy with the Op Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., which was heavily damaged in a road traffic accident near Lodhasuli on N.H. 6 at about 12 noon on 26/12/2013.   The repairing cost to be incurred Rs.2,73,000/- as estimated by Sahara Body Repairing Works at Inda and the same was assessed by the authorized surveyor of the Op who inspected the damaged vehicle and accordingly submitted his report.  Even thereafter, the Op repudiated the claim of Rs.2,73,000/- as repairing cost of the damaged vehicle.   Stating the case, the complainant has come before us for seeking relief as made in his petition of complainant.  In this connection some documentary evidence are produced namely Insurance Certificate, Police Reports, Estimate Report, Registration Certificate & letter dated 24/05/2014 of the Op Insurance Company.

        The Op Insurance Company despite having sufficient opportunity did not file written objection.  But they challenged the case through argument that there is no case of deficiency of service as for the claim was duly considered by the company and in terms of the Insurance Policy and ownership of the vehicle in question was already transferred in the name of another person prior

Contd……………P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

 to the alleged road traffic accident.  Apart from that, the company, immediately after obtaining the Insurance claim from the end of the complainant for damage of the vehicle, has taken appropriate step for causing inspection and surveying.  After due consideration, the Op decided not to admit the case for want of valid ground in terms of the Policy Certificate.  Accordingly, the Op communicated their decision with reason by surveying letter dated 24/05/2014.  So, there is no case of deficiency of service to be held against the Op Insurance Company.  Thus, the case should be dismissed. 

         Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the claim of the complainant is based on justified ground.  There is no denial from the end of the OP regarding the ownership of the vehicle and the incident of damage.  The surveyor made his report which is also not challenged by the Op.  If that be so, the Op should not have any occasion to repudiate the claim of the complainant.  The question of ownership of the vehicle as refuted by the Op should not be accepted for want of any sound and strong law in this behalf.  Decision reported to AIR 2011 Supreme Court 681 and 2014(2) CPR 119(NC) are referred to and explained by the Ld. Advocate that even after selling the vehicle to another person-purchaser does not have any insurable interest with regard to the vehicle and further the transferor must be considered to be a deemed owner and to continue his ownership and thereby that owner should get insurance claim. According to the provisions of law, the ownership continues till the date of effect of registered instrument.  Ld. Advocate further argued that the vehicle may have been transferred but registration has not been taken place on or prior to the date of accident.  Further, the name of the registered owner of this complainant has not been transferred in terms of Motors Vehicles Act.  Thus, the complainant being the transferor is deemed to have been continuing as a lawful owner of the said vehicle.  So, to this effect, the complainant is entitled to his lawful claim.  Accordingly, Ld. Forum should pass

Contd……………P/3

 

- ( 3 ) –

appropriate direction to the Op Insurance Company for payment of repairing cost etc. as prayed for.

            Ld. Advocate for the Op made a strong challenge to the claim of the complainant by referring to the letter of repudiation dated 24/05/2014 duly communicated to the complainant disclosing the grounds elaborately stated therein.  Ld. Advocate further pointed out that after consideration the Op has dismissed the claim of the complainant intimating its decision by sending letter dated 24/05/2014 stating therein the grounds that the vehicle was transferred on 17/07/2013 after accepting full consideration on account of sale of the said vehicle in favour of one Mr. Gautam Bari as declared by virtue of affidavit dated 17/07/2013 by the complainant being the registered owner of the said vehicle. In view of the fact, the decisions referred to by the complainant has no place here in this case.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.   

            We have carefully considered the case with documentary evidence.  It appears that the entire dispute stands on the question whether the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident took place on 26/12/2013 after its sale on 17/07/2013 claimed by the complainant himself by swearing an affidavit pending registration thereof in favour of the transferee till date.  In this matter, the insurance policy relating to the said vehicle stands valid till 29th July 2014 in favour of the complainant.  There is no material evidence showing that the vehicle was in possession of the transferee covering the date of road traffic accident nor was yet delivered to the purchaser.  All the points touching to the law of ownership thereto, in this regard, are taken into consideration.  Since, the insurance policy exists in the name of the complainant covering the date of road traffic accident and the Registration Certificate relating to the said vehicle is in his name as registered owner without change of the registration, there is no scope to avoid the liability from the end of the OP Insurance Company questioning the vehicle having been transferred prior to the date of alleged road traffic accident.

            In view of the findings made here in above, it is held and decided that the transfer of vehicle mere on affidavit without physical delivery of the same was not complete. Under the present condition, the complainant should be  merited for getting relief of his claim on account of repairing cost assessed by the Op Insurance Company by virtue of valid Insurance Policy.

            Following the observation, the issues are held and decided in favour of the complainant.  

                                  Hence,

                                                 It is Ordered,     

                                                                   that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

            The complainant Sri Haru Rana do get a sum of Rs.2,73,000/- (Two lakhs seventy three thousand) only for repairing of his vehicle and Rs. 7,000/- (Seven thousand) only on account of

Contd……………P/4

 

 

- ( 4 ) –

litigation cost payable by the Op Insurance Company.

            Accordingly the OP is hereby directed for payment of Rs.2,73,000/- (Two lakhs seventy three thousand) only and  Rs. 7,000/- (Seven thousand) only within 60 days from the date of order in default the sum hereof shall accrue interest at the rate of  9.2 percent p.a. till payment.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member              Member                               President

                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur.