CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.165/2017
NAVIN P. PATIL
R/o A-1/304, FIRST FLOOR,
SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI-110029…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
THROUGH ITS HEAD MOD ASSESSMENTS & CLAIMS CORPORATE
OFFICE AT : 801A, 8TH FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI- 110017
ALSO AT :
VISHRANTHI MELA RAM TOWERS NO. 2/319,
RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR),
KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600097 .…..RESPONDENT/ OP
Date of Institution-05/05/2017
Date of Order- 27/06/2022
O R D E R
RASHMI BANSAL– Member
The present complaint is filed by the complainant against repudiation of his insurance claim by OP on the ground that at the time of loss, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle.
Succinctly, the complainant, through his complaint, evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments stated that his vehicle, Toyota-Innova, sale invoice Ex. CW1/A, the R/C, CW1/B in the name of complainant, was insured with OP for period from 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017, Ex CW1/C. The said vehicle was stolen on 21/09/2016 from his friend’s house who took the vehicle from complainant for his own use. An e-FIR bearing No. 027681 dated 21.09.2016, Ex. CW 1/D, was lodged by complainant and OP was informed on the same day. The police investigating agency had filed untraced report, accepted by the Court of ACMM vide its order dated 21.10.2016, Ex. CW 1/E. The claim No. VP00418823, dated 05.01.2017, filed by complainant before OP was refused on the ground that at the time of incident, the vehicle was already sold to one Mr. Vikas Aggarwal (father of complainant’s friend who took the vehicle from complainant), hence OP has no liability nor any contract exist between them and repudiated the claim of complainant vide repudiation letter dated 05.01.2017, Ex. RW3 stating that at the time of loss, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. A legal notice dated 16.03.2017, Ex. CW1/F, sent by complainant to OP was not replied despite due service through speed post, Ex. CW1/G, and established by tracking report, Ex. CW1/H.
Complainant alleged that OP has denied his liabilities without any reasonable ground while the vehicle was duly insured with OP and he was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of theft and the vehicle was never sold to Mr. Vikas Aggrawal. Moreover, the insurance policy was in the name of complainant, which could not be issued by OP without investigating or confirming the ownership of the vehicle at the time of issuance of policy. Complainant further states that OP has taken the above said plea when the claim was filed and never raised any objection prior to that in order to avoid its liability. Moreover, police in its investigation had not found anything disputing the ownership of vehicle. The complainant also objected to the authority under which reply and evidence were filed by OP.
OP filed his reply, evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments along with documents in support of his case. The facts as to the theft of the vehicle are not disputed by OP. The only ground for repudiation of claim taken by OP is that vehicle was sold by the complainant to Mr. Vikas Aggarwal in March, 2016 as per investigation report dated 07.12.2016, Ex. R2, and therefore, complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of loss. Also, the vehicle was in possession of Mr. Vikas Aggarwal at the time of theft. OP states that neither the vehicle nor the insurance policy was transferred in the name of Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, who is present owner and as per General Regulations 17 of the India Motor Tariff, the insured is required to transfer insurance policy within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership, which very clearly states that there cannot be any automatic transfer of the policy of insurance on transfer of ownership of the vehicle. It is the duty of the transferee to take necessary steps to get the insurance policy transferred into his name. Since the ownership or the insurance policy was not transferred by the complainant in the name of new owner till the date of theft i.e. 21.09.2016 and the same was in the name of previous owner i.e. the complainant, therefore, the aforesaid policy attracts violation of Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of All India Motor Tariff. Moreover, no contract existed between OP and the complainant.
The OP relied on the investigation report dated 07.12.2016, filed by investigator, appointed by him, containing documents, the claim form and the questionnaire duly filled and signed by Mr. Vikas Aggarwal mentioning himself as the owner of the vehicle, and a letter written by him to the investigator stating that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by him in March, 2016 from the complainant for sum of Rs. 8 lakhs approximately.
OP further states that complainant himself has filed form No. 29 (notice of transfer of ownership of motor vehicle) and form No. 30 (application for intimation and transfer of ownership of motor vehicle), which establish that vehicle was sold by him to Mr. Vikas Aggarwal prior to the date of theft, however, the vehicle as well as the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of Mr. Vikas Aggarwal nor any letter was given to that effect by complainant or even by the new owner to OP.
The investigator opined that incident of the theft is genuine but the insurable interest of the insured is not existing in the vehicle, hence the OP has all the rights to repudiate the claim, therefore, insurance claim of the complainant is rightly rejected by OP vide its letter dated 05.01.2017, Ex. RW3, on the ground that at the time of loss of vehicle, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on its part and the claim raised by complainant is absolutely false, concocted and liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully perused the document placed on record by both the parties and heard the arguments. The only issue to be decided is whether complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle or not.
Documents on records show that the e FIR no. 027681, dated 21.09.2016 was lodged by complainant shows complainant as ‘informant’. There is nothing on record to show that the said vehicle was sold to Mr. Vikas Aggarwal before theft. There is no document on record to show sale / purchase of vehicle or any payment receipt of 8 lakh made to complainant, or change of name in the R/C of the vehicle. Investigator report dated 07.12.2016 itself shows Mr. Vikas Aggarwal as user of the vehicle and complainant, as owner and insured, of the vehicle. The various documents, filed by investigator, also show that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle viz. sales invoice dated 25.03.2011 / No. KT110000456, delivery note 25.03.2011, the customer receipt dated 25.03.2011, transport department’s vehicle slip, registration certificate in the name of the complainant etc. Moreover, Para 10 of the above report, mentions that transport authority verified the request letter dated 08.11.2016 written to transport authority by complainant for keeping file in safe custody, the ownership in the name of insured, certified copy of R/C showing ownership in the name of insured, which establish that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of theft. Also, the vehicle was in possession of user Mr. Vikas Aggarwal before theft, does not establish that vehicle was sold to him.
The judgment ‘National Insurance company Ltd vs Smt. Ram Rati’ of Allahabad High Court, first appeal 1265/1990, decided on 05.07.2013, as relied on by OP is not fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in that case, the issue was with respect to third party insurance claim.
Hon'ble NCDRC vide order dated 24.05.22, in Tarun Parekh Vs Divisional Mananger Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. FA- 62/2015, wherein the main question was for consideration before the National Commission was with regard to the genuineness of the claim of the Insured. Hon'ble NCDRC observed that the report submitted by a surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, provided there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the amount assessed by the Surveyor, as has been accepted by the Opposite Party Insurance Company, is to be accepted.
In Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 612, the Hon'ble SC held – “14 …. that In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.”
In view of the above judgments and considering the evidence placed on record by both the parties, we are of the considered view that OP failed to show by any cogent evidence that complainant is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of theft and also failed to establish that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle, therefore, we hold that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The claim of the complainant is, therefore, allowed and OP is directed to pay the insurance claim to complainant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complainant, along with Rs. 5000/- towards compensation for deficient service, causing mental harassment, agony and torture to complainant and Rs. 2500/- towards litigation charges within three months from the date of order, failing which the entire amount shall carry a further interest @9% p.a. till its actual realization.
The file be consigned to the record room after providing copy of the order to the parties free of cost. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases. The order be uploaded on the website www.confonet.nic.in
The order contains 5 pages and bears my signature on each page.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
