BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.215/2017.
Date of instt.: 11.08.2017.
Date of Decision: 23.01.2018.
Gurmeet Singh s/o Shri Subhash Chand, r/o Balkar Colony, near Jannat Palace, VPO Fatehpur Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., r/o 1st Floor, BD International, SCO No.388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Harkishan School, Old Char Chaman, Karnal.
- Head Office of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., r/o 101,102,103, Natraj, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: Shri R.C. Goel, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri A.K. Khurania, Adv. for the OPs.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Hyundai i-20 car bearing Registration No.HR-05-AM-6213 from Smt. Neelam Rani alongwith Insurance Policy of OPs under Policy No.00000000346605 valid from 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016. It is further alleged that he went to OPs office and requested for effecting transfer of policy in his name and on the direction of OPs, he got transferred the vehicle in his name on 21.1.2016 and RC was issued in his name. It is further alleged that he had taken loan of aforesaid car from HDFC Bank, Pundri and so, RC was retained by the bank on 21.1.2016 itself for completion of formalities regarding the said loan and he received the RC only on 01.2.2016. It is further alleged that he again approached the OPs for transferring the said policy in his name after completion of all formalities on 03.2.2016, but the OP office rejected his request. It is further alleged that on 31.1.2016, the said vehicle was met with an accident and he lodged a DDR at Police Post Pundri in this regard. It is further alleged that he got repaired his vehicle from Rahul Karnal Hyundai and paid Rs.3,24,257/- and submitted his claim with OPs for reimbursement, but the OPs wrongly rejected his claim on dt. 19.7.2016. It is further alleged that he filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman at Chandigarh and requested for settlement, but the said complaint was dismissed on 02.3.2017. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; mis-joinder & non joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts from this Forum; that after intimation of claim lodged by the complainant, on 03.2.2016, the OPs deputed Surveyor Mr. Mahesh Kalra and as per his report, final liability comes to RS.2,77,000/-; that the OPs also deputed M/s Royal Associates and from all facts, documents and investigation report, it was found that the complainant himself is at fault because entitlement of claim is subject to terms and condition of insurance policy; that since the said policy was obtained by Neelam Rani and the complainant purchased the car from her in November 2015 and transferred its RC in his name on 21.1.2016 which is not within stipulated time frame; that car was damaged on 31.1.2016 but policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant within 14 days of its purchase, hence thee was no insurable interest exists as on the date of accident; that Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff Regulations deal with respect of the transfer of insurance policy in favour of purchaser. On merits, the rest of the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13, Mark C1 to Mark C4 and closed evidence on 10.11.2017. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A to RW3/A; documents Ex.R-1 to R-7 and closed evidence on 02.01.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased Hyundai i-20 car bearing Registration No.HR-05-AM-6213 from Smt. Neelam Rani alongwith Insurance Policy of OPs under Policy bearing No.000000000346605 valid from 28.10.2015 to 27.10.2016 (Ex.C1). It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 31.1.2016 and the complainant lodged a DDR dt. 04.2.2016 at PP Pundri in this regard (EX.C4). The grievance of the complainant is that on the directions of OPs, he got repaired his vehicle and spent Rs.3,24,257/- and submitted his claim with the OPs, who wrongly rejected his claim vide letter dt. 19.7.2016 (Ex.C10) on the ground that the complainant is neither the owner of the vehicle in question nor any insurance contract with the OPs. To support his contention, the complainant produced document Mark C-2 issued by HDFC Bank showing that after completing certain formalities, the said bank had given RC to the complainant on 01.2.2016 and thereafter immediately the complainant approached the OPs to transfer the insurance policy in his name, but the OPs refused to transfer the insurance in his name. The complainant further produced copy of RC as Mark C-1 showing that the vehicle in question was transferred in his name on 21.1.2016 well before the accident in question i.e. on 31.1.2016. It is well proved on the file that at the day of accident i.e. on 31.1.2016, the said vehicle was transferred from to Neelam Rani to Gurmeet Singh. As per Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner. Accordingly, instant policy benefits will also be automatically transferred from Gurmeet Singh to Neelam Rani. In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as Mallamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, Vol.CLXXV (2014-3), The Punjab Law Report, Page No.813 (SC), wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Section 157 (1) – Whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner. According to Registration Certificate (Mark C-1), the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Gurmeet Singh from Neelam Rani on 21.1.2016. So, there is an admitted transfer of ownership of the vehicle of the complainant. As per Section 157 of MV Act, once an ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred to Gurmeet Singh, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner, as it is the vehicle which is insured with the company and not the owner. Moreover, the car in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 21.1.2016 and the accident of the said car was occurred on 31.1.2016 i.e. within a gap of ten days from the transfer of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant. So the contention of the OPs that the vehicle in question has not been transferred in the name of the complainant within 14 days, has no force. We are of the considered view that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability on the ground that the original owner has not transferred the insurance policy after the transfer of the ownership. Therefore, Ops have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
6. In the present case, the surveyor namely Mahesh Kalra was deputed by the OPs and according to the report of surveyor Ex.R-1, he has assessed the net loss amounting to the tune of Rs.2,77,000/-. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,77,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,77,000/- ‘as assessed by the surveyor, to the complainant and further to pay Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Dt.23.01.2018. Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri R.C. Goel, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri A.K. Khurania, Adv. for the OPs.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:23.1.2018. Member Presiding Member.
