Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/63

BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSU. CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAVINDRA TIWARI

25 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 19.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.172/2014 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

7, RACE COURSE ROAD, M.G.ROAD, INDORE

THROUGH LEGAL OFFICER,

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

ABOVE ICICI BANK, CHUNA BHATTI,

KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                  …  APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

1. SANJAY YADAV,

    S/O SHRI PREM YADAV,

    R/O SAPREM PALACE,

    MAKSI ROAD, UJJAIN,

    THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY

    HITESH CHABLANI

    S/O LATE DILIP CHABLANI,

    R/O 36/29 STATION ROAD, SHAJAPUR

 

2. HITESH CHABLANI

    S/O LATE DILIP CHABLANI,

    R/O 36/29 STATION ROAD, SHAJAPUR                                                             …   RESPONDENTS.   

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 25.07.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

                   The opposite party/appellant-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company) has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District

-2-

Commission’) in C.C.No.172/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents has been allowed.

2.                In short facts of the case are that the complainant no.1 had sold a Scorpio bearing registration number MP-13 MJ-0009 to the opposite party no.2 on 27.01.2012 and on the same day applied to RTO Ujjain for transfer of registration in the name of complainant no.2 which was transferred in the name of the complainant no.2 on 13.02.2012. It is submitted that the insurance agent told that since the vehicle still in the name of the complainant no.1 Sanjay Yadav and is not transferred in the name of the complainant no.2 Dilip Chablani therefore the insurance can only be done in the name of complainant no.1. Therefore the subject vehicle was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 05.02.2012 to 04.02.2013 in the name of the complainant no.1. It is submitted that on 10.02.2012  while returning from Bhopal, the subject vehicle met with an accident due to steering failure of which intimation was given to the insurance company and thereafter claim was made. It is alleged that despite repeated reminders, the insurance company did not decide the claim. The complainants therefore approached the District Commission seeking IDV of the vehicle Rs.8,25,000/- with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

 

-3-

3.                The opposite party/appellant-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that on receiving intimation from the complainant no.2 about the accident, the insurance company appointed Surveyor Harshal Bamb to access the loss. On the date of accident i.e. 10.02.2012, the complainant no.2 was not the owner of the subject vehicle and there is no relation between the complainant no.2 and the opposite party-insurance company. The transferee had to apply within 14 days for transfer of registration and insurance policy so that the registration and policy can be transferred. At the time of taking insurance this fact was suppressed by the complainants. Since the complainant no.2 did not have insurable interest in the subject vehicle the opposite party-insurance company repudiated the claim and the complainant was informed vide letter dated 17.03.2012 and 24.03.2012. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                The District Commission holding the insurance company guilty of deficiency in service allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay claim of the subject vehicle as per rules to the complainant no.1 within a period of one month. It is also directed that interest @ 6% p.a. shall also be payable on the said amount.

 

-4-

Compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.  Hence this appeal by the insurance company.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company argued that insurance policy is issued under the terms and conditions. Insurance is a contract and its terms and conditions are applicable on the insured as also the insurer. The complainant no.1 sold the vehicle to the complainant no.2 and the complainant no.2 applied for transfer of subject vehicle in RTO which was transferred in his name on 13.02.2012, thus the complainant no.1 was not in possession of the subject vehicle from 27.01.2012 and therefore the insurable interest of the complainant no.1 came to an end on 27.01.2012. He argued that on the date of accident, the complainant no.1-Sanjay Yadav was not the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle was the complainant no.2-Dilip Chablani but the insurance policy was not in his name. The initimation about accident was also given by the complainant no.2. No claim has been preferred by the complainant no.1. He therefore argued that the order passed by the District Commission is not based on proper appreciation of facts and law.  He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the present appeal. He placed reliance on a decision of

 

-5-

Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs V. C. Deendayal & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC) in support of his contention.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainants/respondents argued that it is true that the complainant no.1 sold the subject vehicle to the complainant no.2 on 27.01.2012 and applied for transfer of registration which was transferred on 13.02.2012. On the date of accident, i.e. 10.02.2012 the complainant no.1 was the registered owner of the subject vehicle and the subject vehicle is also insured in his name, therefore, the insurance company cannot escape from their liability to pay the claim. Also the complainant no.2 had 14 days time to get the insurance transferred from the date of transfer of registration i.e. 13.02.2012 but the accident took place on 10.02.2012 and therefore since the complaint filed by both complainants, the District Commission has rightly directed the insurance company to pay the claim to the complainant no.1. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.  He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Shri Narayan Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalita Devi II (2013) CPJ 32B (NC)(CN) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjib Nandi Majumder IV (2013) CPJ 166 (NC).

 

-6-

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the evidence available on record we find that it is an admitted fact that the complainant no.1-Sanjay Yadav sold the subject vehicle to the complainant no.2-Dilip Chablani on 27.01.2012 and he applied for transfer of registration in RTO on the same day which was transferred on 13.02.2012. The accident took place on 10.02.2012. Admittedly, the subject vehicle was insured with the insurance company for the period 05.02.2012 to 04.02.2013 in the name of the complainant no.1-Sanjay Yadav. Though the complainant no.1 sold the subject vehicle to the complainant no.2 which was transferred in the name of the complainant no.2 on 13.02.2012, on the date of accident, i.e. 10.02.2012 the complainant no.1 was the registered owner of the subject vehicle and the subject vehicle is also insured in his name, therefore he was having insurable interest in the subject vehicle and is entitled to get the claim. If he could have not filed the complainant as co-complainant, the position would have been different.

9.               It is also pertinent to mention here that the subject vehicle was sold to the complainant no.2 on 27.01.2012 which was transferred in his name in the RTO on 13.02.2012. Though Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as also GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff casts an obligation on the transferee to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of vehicle to

-7-

the insurer for necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the insurance policy. Not only from the date of purchase of vehicle as also from the date of transfer of vehicle he was having 14 days time to get the policy transferred in his name as he purchased the vehicle on 27.01.2012 and transferred in RTO in his name on 13.02.2012 and the accident took place on 10.02.2012.

10.              In this view of the matter, the insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the complainants are not having insurable interest in the subject vehicle as the complainant no.1 sold the vehicle and the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant no.2. In fact, on 10.02.2012 the vehicle registered and insured in the name of the complainant no.1 and therefore he was having insurable interest in the vehicle. Also in any set of circumstances, with regard to complainant no.2, even under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act transfer application is to be made within a period of 14 days and those 14 days were not over in the present case. Hence, in our view, it is highly improper and unjustified act on part of the insurance company to reject the claim on such ground and harass the complainant.

11.              The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in V.C.Deendayal is not applicable in the present case as is distinguished on facts and circumstances.

-8-

12.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of a considered view that the District Commission has rightly appreciating the facts and evidence available on record passed the impugned order which is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

13.              In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                                 Member