Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 142/12.04.2016
Manav Harish Singla s/o Harish Singla
R/o 98, Parmarth Apartments, Vikas Puri,
Delhi West, Delhi-110018 …Complainant
Versus
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
Office-1 at - 7-B Near Rajendra Place
Metro Station, Opposite Siddhartha Hotel,
Pusa Road, Bank Street, Central Delhi-110005
Office-2 at - Universal Insurance Building,
Ist Floor, 2/2 A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing 12.04.2016
Date of Order: 01.11.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) – Complainant Manav Harish Singla filed the complaint in his individual capacity having grievances against the OP that Car/vehicle bearing registration no. DL-4CA-M 9087 was belonging to him and on 06.03.2014, he transferred the vehicle in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Ltd and at the time of renewal of policy in 2015, the OP was informed about change of ownership in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Later, when the car was stolen and FIR was lodged on 30.04.2015, the OP declined the claim and repudiated it by letter dated 14.10.2015 that the vehicle is in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and policy is in the name of Manav Harish Singla. There is deficiency in services for want of settlement of valid claim and the complainant seeks amount of Rs. 3,82,900/- being amount of insurance along with interest at the rate of 18% pa, besides of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
1.2. The complaint is opposed by the OP on the ground that claim was repudiated properly for concealment of material fact as well as violation of General Regulation No. 17 of Indian Motor Tariff that in case of 'own damages' the policy to be in favour of transferee on the specific instruction and consent of transfer.
2.1. (Case of complainant) -Complainant Manav Harish Singla, being registered owner, got insured his car DL-4CA-M 9087, having engine No. 207855 and chassis no. 1793726 [briefly vehicle] vide Policy No. 0000000000748001 for the period w.e.f. 12.02.2013 to 11.02.2014 for sum insured/IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- in his name., it was get renewed vide policy no. Policy No. 0000000000748001-1 for the period 12.02.2014 to 11.02.2015. However, on 06.03.2014 during currency of this policy, the complainant transferred his vehicle to a legal entity namely M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Ltd. The complainant Manav Harish Singla is a director in the same company.
2.2. At the time of renewal of policy in 2015 the OP was informed about transfer of the vehicle in the name of said company and it was also informed that because of change of ownership the car/vehicle would be required inspection, it was inspected on 12.02.2015, the original RC was also seen by the OP that vehicle is in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd., its photocopy was also taken and premium cheque of Rs. 8,340/- was also handed over to the authorized reprehensive of OP, it was assured that insurance policy will be delivered shortly.
2.3. The vehicle was stolen intervening of 25.04.2015 and 30.04.2015, for which FIR no. 000636/15 dated 30.04.2015 P.S. e-police station was registered. When the complainant was contacting the OP for claim as well as copy of policy was not received, thence claim was lodged by complying all the formalities. However, the OP repudiated the claim by issuing letter dated 14.10.2015, stating the vehicle is in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and policy is in the name of Manav Harish Singla. Whereas, the policy was in the name of complainant before inspection on 12.02.2015. The premium was also tendered from the cheque of the said company, therefore, the OP declined the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant sent various reminders to pay legitimate claim of the complainant but no result. That is why, the present complaint for relief claimed. The complaint is accompanied with documentary record of insurance policies from 12.02.2013 onwards in the name of complainant, copy of FIR, copy of theft claim acknowledgement letter, letter dated 14.10.2015 of declining the claim, motor vehicle inspection report dated 11.02.2014, letters issued by investigator, letter written to OP about theft of vehicle, account detail, particulars of vehicle, memorandum and article of association of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The OP does not deny about the issue of policy in the name of complainant Manav Harish Singla, however, the complaint is opposed on other grounds that it is mala-fide, it is abuse of process of law since the complaint was filed by concealing the material facts. The vehicle was transferred on 06.03.2014 during the previous policy w.e.f. 12.02.2014 to 11.02.2015 but complainant never informed to the OP about this transfer in the name of Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd., which is appearing from the documents and record of complainant; it is clear contradiction of terms and condition of policy. Thus, the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle before the happening of loss between 25.04.2015 to 30.04.2015. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint since he ceased to be owner of the vehicle and he has no insurable interest. He did not inform the complainant.
3.2. The OP also opposes the complaint that it was not informed of change of ownership nor the said vehicle was inspected as alleged. Moreover, the complainant was provided 25% NCB and had the complainant apprised the OP about transfer of the vehicle, he would not have been given 25% NCB. The inspection of vehicle was on 12.02.2015 and not on 11.02.2014. The complainant is not entitled for the amount of Rs. 3,82,900/- or interest thereon nor compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- or cost of Rs. 50,000/- or other relief claimed in the complaint. The reply is annexed with copy of letter dated 24.03.2013 in respect of NCB.
4. (Replication of complainant) - The complainant filed detailed rejoinder and all allegations of reply are opposed by reaffirming the complaint as correct that at the time of renewal of the policy the AR of OP was provided with copy of RC showing the name of Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The premium was accepted by way of cheque issued by the M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. but OP is trying to mislead the Forum.
5. (Evidence)- Complainant filed his detailed affidavit of evidence, it is on the lines of complaint. OP led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Akhil, it is also on the pattern of reply.
6. (Final hearing)- The complainant as well as OP filed their respective written argument, they are blend of pleadings and documents. Sh. Jitender Kumar, Advocate for complainant also presented oral submission on behalf of complainant and Sh. Uday, Advocate for OP also made the oral submissions on behalf of OP. It does not require to reproduce their contentions, since case of both the parties with documents have already been detailed in paragraph 2 & 3 above.
7.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record. By taking stock of all record and materials, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) Generally in insurance policy contract, there are three essential component namely - (a) the Insurer (b) the Insured and (c) the Object being insured (or subject matter of insurance). They are governed by terms and conditions of insurance contract for covering the perils.
(ii) The complainant Manav Harish Singla being registered owner got his insured car DL-4CA-M 9087, having engine No. 207855 and chassis no. 1793726 vide Insurance[briefly vehicle] vide Policy No. 0000000000748001 for the period 12.02.2013 to 11.02.2014 for sum insured/IDV of Rs.5,00,000/-] in his name., it was get renewed vide Policy No. 0000000000748001-1 for the period 12.02.2014 to 11.02.2015.
However, on 06.03.2014 during currency of this policy, the complainant transferred his vehicle to a legal entity namely M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Ltd. The complainant Manav Harish Singla is a director in the same company. The complainant ceased to be registered owner of the vehicle w.e.f. 06.03.2014.
(iii) It was further renewed vide policy No. 0000000000748001-2 for the period 12.02.2015 to 11.02.2016 and it is also in the name of the complainant Sh. Manav Harish Singla despite he was neither registered owner of the vehicle nor having insurable interest in the vehicle, since registered owner of the vehicle is M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Ltd.
To say, complainant was not owner of the vehicle, how he could get insured the vehicle in his name, or in simple words, he bought the policy for the vehicle, which was not belonging to him. The vehicle is in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited, a legal entity, which owns & holds property but insurance policy was not taken in its name in respect of the vehicle. However, there was no insurance policy for the vehicle in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited for the period w.e.f. 12.02.2015 to 11.02.2016
(iv) The subject vehicle was stolen in the mid-night of 29.4.2015/30.4.2015, which happens to be during validity of insurance policy but in the complaint as well as in affidavit of evidence, the complainant asserts that theft took place between 25.04.2015 to 30.4.015. It is material contradiction.
(v) The complainant was very much aware that on the eve of transfer of vehicle, the name of transferee is to be registered in R/C and he also got changed registration from his own name to the name of transferee M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited.
Similarly, name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited ought to be got incorporated in the insurance document to update the subject matter to be covered against risks insured. The complainant had not requested in writing to OP to incorporate the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited in the policy, rather he continues to get renewed the policy in his own personal name. It was legal obligation and duty of complainant to get name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt Limited incorporated or to inform the Insurer for appropriate endorsement in the policy immediately on the eve of transfer or to take new policy in the name of company. It would not help the complainant by bald allegations that photocopy of R/C was given to an agent.
(vi) The complainant has been filed in personal capacity of Manav Harish Singla on the ground that insurance policy is in his name, however, it would not make his locus standi, since he has no insurable interest in the subject vehicle for want of vehicle in his name as subject vehicle is in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited, which has been rightly pointed out by the OP while referring the Regulations in Indian Motor Tariff.
The complainant also contends that claim of the said company may be considered in the present complaint. However, it will also not invest him locus standi to file complaint just because he is a Director of M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited or he has been using the vehicle, since insurable interest is of company. This complaint is not pursuant to authorisation/resolution by M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited. Moreover, had there been authorisation by M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited, even then the vehicle was not insured in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited to locus standi to make the claim.
(vii) The complainant cannot derive any benefit that premium was paid for insurance of same vehicle by cheque issued by M/s Harasha Pharma Private Limited since other requirements are also to be satisfied. In case this analogy of complainant is to be accepted, then it would infer that if premium is paid by 'B' for registered owner 'A', then 'B' would become insured instead of actual owner 'A'. This logic does not sustain and acceptable in the present situation.
(viii) The repudiation letter dated 14.10.2015 mentions that at the time of incident, the policy was in the name of Sh. Manav Harish Singla/complainant but the registration certificate was in the name of M/s Harasha Pharma Pvt. Ltd., consequently, the present complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle and it was labeled as violation of Regulation No. 17 of India Motor Tariff, the complainant failed to rebut the reasons and grounds of repudiation of the claim.
7.2 Consequently, there is no deficiency of services on the part of OP nor it has been proved by the complainant. The complainant could not prove his case against OP. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Announced on this Ist November 2023 [कार्तिक 10, साका 1945].
9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
