DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO.-207/2018

No. DC/ Central/2021/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh. Ram Naval (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against SBI General Insurance Ltd. (in short OP) pleading therein that Sh. Ravi Kumar Sinsiwar (in short OP2) “purchased a vehicle bearing No. HR-55L-7518, Model No. 2010, Engine No. MAE022050Y, Chasis No. MBIAUJFC2ARLC9008 on finance at Hinduja Leyland Chennai, in the year 2010”.Further, It is stated that on 25.02.2013.  OP2 sold the said vehicle to Sh. Vijay Kumar (in short OP3) vide Special Power of Attorney dated 25.02.2013.  OP3 allegedly sold the said vehicle to the complainant vide Special Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2013.  The said vehicle was insured in the name of OP2 vide Policy No. 0000000000813370 for IDV of Rs. 6,84,000/-.  Complainant paid the premium after purchase of the said vehicle from OP3. The vehicle was stolen along with all the original documents on 06.08.2014.  F.I.R. No. 169/2014 was lodged under Section 379 of IPC regarding theft of the vehicle.  OP1, the insurer repudiated the claim of the complainant without application of mind.  The instant complaint was therefore filed seeking direction to the insurer OP1 to pay IDV of Rs. 6,84,000/- with interest to the complainant along with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. OP1 contested the claim. It is pleaded that the claim is time barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act as the vehicle was stolen on 23.05.2013. It is stated that claim was closed vide registered letter dated 08.07.2013 but the complaint was filed in October, 2018.  It is also pleaded that registered owner of the vehicle is OP2 and complainant never got the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name. It is pleaded that the complainant allegedly purchased a vehicle bearing no. HR-55L-7518 from the registered owner OP no. 2 on 16.04.2013 but the complainant never got the RC and policy of vehicle transferred in his name which amounts to violation of Section 50, 157 of Motor Vehicles Act and GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief as the complainant was neither having any insurable interest nor privity of contract with OP1 on the date of loss. It is also stated that the OP1 insurer considered the claim of the complainant and rejected the same vide registered letter dated 08.07.2013 which was duly served on the insured / registered owner.  It is stated that OP on receiving intimation about theft of insured vehicle registered the claim no. 79836 and immediately appointed investigator for investigation of the theft and during investigation the registered owner of the vehicle did not cooperate with the investigator and did not fulfill the requirements for processing the claim and never provided requisite documents. Therefore OP1 sent reminder letters dated 24.05.2013 and 20.06.2013 through registered post and same were duly received by the registered owner but he did not pursue the claim.
3. Parties filed their affidavits in support of their cases and also filed Written Submissions. We have heard the parties.

4. It is complainant’s case that the vehicle is registered in the name of OP2 who sold it to OP3.  Complainant purchased it from OP3 vide Special Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2013.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the OP insurer that the complaint is barred by limitation.

In Para 6 and 7 Page 2 of the Written Statement, OP insurer pleaded that the OP on receiving intimation about theft of insured vehicle registered the claim no.79836 and immediately appointed investigator for investigation of the theft and during investigation the registered owner of the vehicle did not cooperate with the investigator and did not fulfill the requirements for processing the claim and never provided the requisite documents and therefore OP1 sent reminder letters dated 24.05.2013 and 20.06.2013 through registered post and same were duly received by the registered owner but he did not submit requisite documents and therefore insurer closed the claim for non-submission of documents vide its registered letter dated 08.07.2013 which was duly served upon insured/registered owner.

6. Complainant in Para 8(b) of his Written Arguments pleaded the name and address of registered owner in the policy and the letter issued by the insurer is not the same. It is alleged   OP1 deliberately with malafide intention sent notice to different unknown address and dishonestly closed the claim.
7. OP2 and OP3 appeared before this Forum physically on 15.04.2019. Thereafter they neither appeared nor filed any written statement.  Complainant has placed on record an affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kumar the registered owner. He nowhere mentioned that he did not receive from the insurer any letters dated 24.05.2013, 20.06.2013 and 08.07.2013 as referred above.
8. Sh. Jitender Dabhai, Deputy Manager of the insurer in Para 6 and 7 of his affidavit stated that
9.  

I say that the OP1 considered the claim of complainant in view of the above facts & circumstances and settled legal position, as the insured/registered owner failed to submit the documents despite receiving the above letters, therefore the OP closed the claim for non-submission of the documents vide its registered letter dated 08.07.2013 giving detailed & valid reasons, duly served upon insured/registered owner.  A true copy of the closer letter dated 08.07.2013 is annexed herewith as Ext. OPW-1/C.”

The vehicle was stolen on 23.05.2013. Insurer informed the registered owner by letter dated 08.07.2013 regarding closure of the claim. Complaint was filed on 31.10.2018 which is clearly not within two years from the date on which cause of action arose and therefore barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9. The claim is otherwise also not maintainable as the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of theft. He had no insurable interest in the vehicle and OP had not liability to indemnify him.
10. In Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs The New India Assurance Company, Civil Appeal No. 2632/2020, Order dated 18.06.2020 before the Apex Court.  Facts of the case were that Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (in short appellant) had already sold the vehicle, namely, truck to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari.  It was not in dispute that appellant continued to be the registered owner of the said truck on the date of accident.  It was the case of the appellant that the said truck had been purchased with finance from ICICI Bank, stood hypothecated to ICICI Bank, and the same could not be transferred without the consent of ICICI Bank. ICICI Bank had not issued No Objection to the Appellant for transfer of the said truck, as the dues of ICICI Bank had not been repaid in full till the date of the accident. Admittedly, however, the Appellant had entered into a sale agreement with the said Mohammed Iliyas Ansari.

Aggrieved by the action of the Insurer company in not releasing the claim of the Appellant, towards reimbursement of losses on account of the accident, the Appellant approached the District Forum with the complaint numbered case No. 404 of 2012. By a judgment and order dated 9.1.2014, the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the Appellant and directed the Insurer to pay Rs.4,93,500/- to the Appellant within a month along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, 6.10.2012 till the date of payment and further directed the Insurer to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The Insurer appealed to the State Commission. The said appeal, being Appeal No.FA/14/85, was dismissed by the State Commission by an order dated 22.7.2014, which was challenged by the Insurer before the National Commission by filing the Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2014. The National Commission allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission respectively, and dismissed the complaint of the Appellant by observing.

“A perusal of the sale agreement dated 11.4.2008 executed by the complainant with Shri Mohd. Iliyas Ansari would show that the complainant handed over the possession of the aforesaid vehicle to Shri Ansari on payment of Rs.1,40,000/- Since the vehicle had been got financed from ICICI Bank the remaining payment was to be made by the purchaser directly to the said bank. The aforesaid document also shows that a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was received by the complainant from Shri Ansari on 11.4.2008. Thus, it stands duly proved that not only had the complainant received the sale consideration agreed with Shri Ansari he had also delivered the possession of the vehicle to him on 11.4.2008. Though the vehicle was not got registered in the name of Shri Ansari by the time it met with an accident, that in our opinion, would be of no consequence in view of the sale having been already completed on 11.4.2008.”

Hon. Apex Court set aside the judgement of the National Commission and observed that

“The finding of the National Commission that the fact of registration of the said truck in the name of the Appellant was inconsequential is also not sustainable in law. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines owner to mean the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. The definition of owner has been overlooked and ignored by the National Commission. Had ownership of the said truck intended to be transferred forthwith, the registration would have been transferred in the name of the transferee, as also the permit to operate the said truck for carriage of goods.”

It was held that since as per Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Owner means a person in whose name motor vehicle stands registered and since ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the complainant insurer was entitled to repudiate her claim.

11. In the instant case, complainant was not the registered owner on the date of theft of the vehicle, so, the case is covered by the judgement of Apex Court in Surender Kumar Bhilawe(Supra).
12. Moreover, the financer, namely, Hinduja Leyland, Chennai has neither been impleaded nor any no objection certificate was obtained from it saying that its dues have been cleared and it had no objection to the claim of the complainant arising out of theft of the vehicle.

13. In view of the above discussion, complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

Announced on this 6^th October  of 2022.