STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional No.1, SCO No.99-100, Ist Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……..Appellant

V E R S U S

1.  Satya Devi, widow of Late Shri Baldev Singh (R/o  Village Malkho Majra, Nalagarh, District Solan, (H.P).

2.  Sanjeev Thakur, Legal Heirs of Late Baldev Singh, r/o  Village Malkho Majra, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

....Respondents.

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER,   PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Ms. Anamika Mehra, Adv. for the appellant.

                 Sh. Sunil. K. Dixit, Adv. for respondents.  

PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the complainant Rs.2,54,500/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation failing which the same was to be paid alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since 17.12.2008 (one month after the motor claim form Annexure OP-A was submitted to the OP) till the amount was actually paid to the complainant.

2.                The facts, in brief are that Baldev Singh, was the registered owner of Tata Indigo Car, which was insured with the OP, vide package policy, valid from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2008. He expired on 25.05.2009. The car, in question, met with an accident on 17.11.2008, and, it was a case of total loss. Baldev Singh, at the time, when he was alive, lodged the claim with the OP and supplied each  and every document, which was required for the settlement of the same (claim), but the OP repudiated the same, vide letter dated 10.06.2009, without any valid reason. After the death of Baldev Singh, his wife Satya Devi, legal heir of Baldev Singh, sent a legal notice to the OP on 6.10.2009, but to no avail. It was stated that the OP, was thus, deficient in rendering service, and, also indulged into an unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).

3.                In reply, the OP submitted that the car, in question, was insured in the name of Baldev Singh (now deceased) vide package policy, which was valid from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2008. It was also admitted, that the car in question, met with an accident. It was stated that the claim form had not been signed by Baldev Singh and his signatures seemed to be forged. It was stated that Baldev Singh, had already sold the car to one Kirti Sharma, before the accident took place, and, as such, the same belonged to Kirti Sharma and not to him (Baldev Singh). It was further stated that, at the time of taking the policy on 18.12.2007, the material fact was concealed by Baldev Singh, that he had already sold the car. It was further stated that, on 26.11.2008, Baldev Singh had given a statement to the surveyor, that he had sold the vehicle to Sh.Kirti Sharma. It was further stated that, Kirti Sharma had also made a statement, that Baldev Singh had sold the car to him. It was further stated that, since Baldev Singh, had no insurable interest, in the car, at the time of accident, and, as such, his legal representatives, after his death, could not be said to have any insurable interest, therein. It was further stated that the claim in question, was rightly repudiated by the OP.

4.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para of this order.

6.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/ OP.

7.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.

8.                The Counsel for the appellant, by referring to various documents, submitted that, at the time of taking the policy on 18.12.2007, Baldev Singh had already sold the car in favour of Kirti Sharma. She further submitted that, when the accident took place on 17.11.2008, Baldev Singh was not the owner of the car. She further submitted that, since the car had already been sold in favour of Kirti Sharma, which had been admitted by him, in his statement, before the surveyor, as also, in the FIR lodged by him, Baldev Singh, had no insurable interest, nor could his legal heirs, after his death, could be said to have, any insurable interest. She further submitted, that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, by the Insurance Company, as per the terms and conditions, contained in the insurance policy. She further submitted that, the OP was not deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant. She further submitted that, the District Forum, was wrong in accepting the complaint. She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that, the car, in question, was not sold by Baldev Singh. She further submitted that the registration of the car, was in the name of Baldev Singh. The insurance policy was also taken by him and at the time of accident, he (Baldev Singh), was the registered owner of the car, in question. It was further submitted that, under these circumstances, Baldev Singh, had insurable interest, and after his death, his legal heirs i.e. complainants/respondents had got insurable interest. It was further submitted that the District Forum, was right in accepting the complaint.

10.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. OP-D, is a copy of the affidavit, stated to be have been sworn by Baldev Singh. OP-1. It was statedly given by Kirti Sharma, to the surveyor, appointed by the OP. The procedure of transfer of ownership, in favour of the transferee, is mentioned in Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.  The owner of the motor vehicle is to report the fact of transfer in Form No.29 to the Registering Authority concerned, and, an application for transfer of ownership, is to be made, by the transferee in form No.30 alongwith the certificate of registration, certificate of insurance and appropriate fee, as prescribed by the authorities. In the instant case, no Form No.29, was submitted by Baldev Singh, nor any no-objection certificate, as required under Section 48 was obtained by him.  Even, Kirti Sharma, did not report the transfer of ownership, in Form No.30, to the Registering Authority.  In the absence of adoption of the aforesaid procedure, the vehicle could not be transferred, from Baldev Singh to Kirti Sharma. Even from the affidavit, referred to above of Baldev Singh, it was not proved that any consideration, in respect of the vehicle, was paid to him by Kirti Sharma. Cheque number has been left blank, in this document. No supporting evidence, was produced to show, that the consideration, was received by Baldev Singh, while allegedly selling the Car, in question to Kirti Sharma. Name and address of the Notary, on the photocopy of the affidavit, are also not mentioned. Neither, the Notary appeared nor his affidavit is placed, on record, to show that Baldev Singh, appeared before him, and swore the affidavit.

11.             The mere fact, that Kirti Sharma, in the DDR, stated that he was the owner of the car, or he made the statement before the surveyor in that regard, does not prove the sale of car in his favour. Until or unless, the requirements of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act were complied with, no transfer of the vehicle, from one person to another, could be said to be complete. Even otherwise, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being special enactment dealing with transfer of vehicles, shall have over-riding effect on the provisions of Sales of Goods Act. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the report of the surveyor, regarding the sale of car, in favour of Kirti Sharma, by Baldev Singh, was not based on any admissible evidence, but, it could only be said to be hearsay. The report OP-6 of the surveyor which was made the basis for the repudiation of claim, is based on hearsay evidence, it was rightly not acted upon by the District Forum. Since, Baldev Singh was the registered owner of the car till the date, the accident took place, and the insurance policy was also in his name, he had the insurable interest, and, as such, his claim was wrongly repudiated by the OP. The District Forum was right in coming to such a conclusion. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant being devoid of merit, is rejected.

12.             In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shrawan Bhati, II (2008) CPJ 364 (NC), the claim of the insured was repudiated, on the ground, that he had no insurable interest in the vehicle, because he had already sold the same, on the date of theft. In that case, it was held that there was no evidence, that sale proceeds were received, by the complainant. The RC, in that case was in the name of the complainant. Under these circumstances, it was held in National Insurance Co. Ltd`s., Vs. Shrawan Bhati`s case (supra), that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company, was illegal. The principle of law, laid down, in the case aforesaid, is fully applicable to the instant case.

13.             The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced.

16^th ,May  2011.                                              Sd/-

                                                                                    [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

            PRESIDENT

                        Sd/-    

            [NEENA SANDHU]

            MEMBER