Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/30/2022

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Jatin K Suniara

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :         30 of 06.04.2022

Date of Decision                      :         24.08.2022

Mandeep Singh S/o Resham Singh Resident of VPO Amargarh, District SBS Nagar.                                                               …………..Complainant

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office 9^th Floor, A & B wing, Fulcrum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri East Mumbai.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Mall Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.
3. Toyota Tsusho Insurance Broker India Private Limited, C/o GLOBE Toyota, GT Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana, Punjab.

      …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer  Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.YADWINDER PAL SINGH BAATH, MEMBER

SMT.RENU GANDHI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Jatin K Suniara, Advocate

For OP No.1&2             :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP No.3                            :         Ex parte

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred that complainant is doing work of taxi driver.  This only source of income for the complainant. Complainant is consumer of SBI General Insurance bearing No.TSB/30467404 dated 07.02.2022 for car bearing No.PB01-C-3067 by OP-2 through OP-3.  Complainant had paid full and final premium on 07.02.2022.  On 08.02.2022 complainant has given his car bearing registration No.PB01-C-3067 to his friend for personal use and unfortunately car was hit by another vehicle from back and flew away.  After the accident, complainant informed the insurance company –OP2 that his car got damaged from back and complainant send car to Castel Toyota agency at Nawanshahr and contact the insurance company.  After some time one investigator namely Mr.Shubham Arora came and investigate from complainant and his friend Mr. Lakhvir Singh about the accident and he asked the complainant and his friend to sign on some blank papers and given assurance to complainant that his claim will be passed within few days and complainant on assurance of Mr. Shubam Arora regarding the claim, got repaired the car from Caste Toyota.  On 12.03.2022, the complainant received a letter through email that claim No.MVO1260961 unable to consider the claim.  Complainant is doing the taxi business and loss money day by day because car is not handover by agency because insurance company refuse to clear the claim without any cause.  Lastly, prayer has been made that order of OP as detailed in email letter dated 08.03.2022 be set aside and repair bill of Rs.1,64,172/- with fine of Rs.2,00,000/- be imposed upon the OP for harassment. 
2. Upon notice, OP No.3 has failed to appeared and ultimately proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.06.2022.
3. The OPs No.1&2 have appeared through counsel and taken preliminary objections contested the complaint that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; answering OP after receiving claim from complainant duly appointed his investigator to investigate the matter in question.  The investigator investigated the matter and it was found that the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to Lakhvir Singh on 29.01.2022 as stated by him to investigator of OPs.  The possession of insured vehicle was also with Lakhvir Singh, as such, complainant is not consumer as defined under Act.  Answering OP has categorically stated in their letter sent to Mandeep Singh that the reported claim is not admissible as per the terms and conditions of policy.  As the complainant ceased to be the owner of insured vehicle and the complainant has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle on date of damage to said vehicle.  The complainant has no privity of contract with answering OP and buyer who purchased the vehicle in question does not have any legal rights to stake the claim under the policy.  On merits, premium of payment of insurance of vehicle in dispute is admitted.  Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
5. Rejoinder filed to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through written arguments of OPs and the record carefully.
7. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is consumer of SBI General Insurance bearing No.TSB/30467404 dated 07.02.2022 for car bearing No.PB01-C-3067 by OP-2 through OP-3.  Complainant had paid full and final premium on 07.02.2022.  On 08.02.2022 complainant has given his car bearing registration No.PB01-C-3067 to his friend for personal use and unfortunately car was hit by another vehicle from back and flew away.  After the accident, complainant informed the insurance company –OP2 that his car got damaged from back and complainant send car to Castel Toyota agency at Nawanshahr and contact the insurance company.  After some time one investigator namely Mr.Shubham Arora came and investigated from complainant and his friend Mr. Lakhvir Singh about the accident and he asked the complainant and his friend to sign on some blank papers and given assurance to complainant that his claim will be passed within few days and complainant on assurance of Mr. Shubam Arora regarding the claim, got repaired the car from Caste Toyota.  On 12.03.2022, the complainant received an email from OP-2 that he is unable to consider the claim (No.MVO1260961) as vehicle is sold to Lakhvir Singh and at the time of accident the RC and Insurance stands in the name of Mandeep Singh.  As such, OP-3 has not release the vehicle.  Then the complainant paid the repair bill Ex.C-2 and got release the vehicle from agency. 
8. On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 1&2 argued that after receiving claim from complainant duly appointed his investigator to investigate the matter in question.  The investigator investigated the matter and it was found that the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to Lakhvir Singh on 29.01.2022 as stated by him to investigator of OPs.  The possession of insured vehicle was also with Lakhvir Singh, as such, complainant is not consumer as defined under Act.  Answering OP has categorically stated in their letter sent to Mandeep Singh that the reported claim is not admissible as per the terms and conditions of policy.  As the complainant ceased to be the owner of insured vehicle and the complainant has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle on date of damage to said vehicle.  The complainant has no privity of contract with answering OP and buyer who purchased the vehicle in question does not have any legal rights to stake the claim under the policy.
9. The vehicle in dispute was insured by Opposite Party OP-1 &2 vide policy in question Ex.C-4. Since the complainant has already submitted that all documents. At last, the Opposite Parties vide Ex.OP1/4 has stated that the claim of the complainant is not admissible.
10. The only ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is that Registration Certificate and insured vehicle stands in the name of Mandeep Singh at time of loss.  Insured vehicle has been sold to Lakhvir Singh on 29.01.2022.  Same is confirmed by current user i.e. Mr. Lakhvir Singh in his statement given to investigator. The possession of insured vehicle has been handed over to the buyer Mr. Lakhvir Singh since then.  The buyer Mr.Lakhvir Singh has failed to get transferred registration certificate and the insurance policy on his name after purchase of insured vehicle till the date of loss. 
11. We relied upon the case titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance versus Mohd. Arshad 1 (2022)CPJ 152 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby it is held that “Consumer Protection Act – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Insurance – Sale of insured vehicle – RC and insurance is not transferred by original owner – Accident of insured vehicle – Repudiation of claim – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence Appeal – In cases where RC and insurance is not transferred by original owner in favour of person to which it has been alleged that ownership has actually been transferred, Original Insured person remains as “Owner” for purpose of Motor Vehicle Act and claim by him/her is maintainable with respective Insurance Company – Since at time when claim was raised with Appellant, RC and Insurance was in name of Respondent and he was entitled to raise claim with Appellant as insurable interest existed in favour of Respondent – Repudiation of claim not justified – Appellant was rightly ordered to get vehicle repaired from OP-2 on paying Rs.23,135 – Appellant liable to pay Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.10,000 towards mental, pain, agony and litigation costs”. …………

Further, the relevant paras is as

“…………..No doubt, the complainant have submitted in his affidavit during the investigation that he has sold the vehicle to Mr. Jamil Ahmad, but this will not absolve the insurance company from its liability. Neither the registration of the vehicle nor the insurance policy has been transferred in the name of Mr. Jamil Ahmad. It has remained in the name of the complainant. As long as the registration of the vehicle and the insurance policy have remained in the name of the complainant, the complainant have every right to file the claim against the insurance company. Therefore, by repudiating the claim of the complainant by the insurance company on the ground of 'Non Insurable Interest', the insurance company have been deficient in their services. By repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground of 'Non Insurance Interest', the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

6.       The fact that the vehicle was sold by the Respondent herein to one Mr. Jamil Ahmed is well established from the affidavit filed along with the present appeal as Annexure A-4. However, it is also established that neither the RC nor the insurance was transferred in favour of Jamil Ahmed. In the given situation, the issue to be decided is whether any interest persisted in favour of the present Respondent at the time of raising the claim.

7.       At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to the dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited reported at AIR 2020 SC 3149, which reads as follows:

"53.       In our considered opinion, the National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the National Commission ignoring vital admitted facts as stated above, including registration of the said truck being in the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of 'No Objection' from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance Under Section 157.

54.              In view of the definition of 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

57.              The judgment and order of the National Commission is unsustainable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission under appeal is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. The Insurer shall pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 4,93,500/- as directed by the District Forum with interest as enhanced by this Court to 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- awarded towards the cost of litigation, is in our view grossly inadequate. The Insurer shall pay a composite sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Appellant towards costs and compensation for the agony caused to the Appellant by withholding his legitimate dues. The amounts as directed above shall be paid to the Appellant within six weeks from date of the judgment and order."

8.       From the aforesaid dicta, it flows that even in cases where the RC and the insurance is not transferred by the original owner in favour of the person to which it has been alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, the Original Insured person remains as the "Owner" for the purposes of Motor Vehicles Act and a claim by him/her is maintainable with the respective Insurance Company.

9.       The facts of the present case are also similar to the aforesaid case since in the present case also, at the time when the claim was raised with the Appellant, the RC as well as the Insurance was in the name of the Respondent and he was entitled to raise the claim with the Appellant since an Insurable Interest existed in the favour of the Respondent.

10.     Consequently, we hold that the repudiation of claim by the Appellant was not called for and is not in consonance with the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In terms of the aforesaid the findings of the District Forum that by repudiating the claim of the complainant by the insurance company on the ground of 'Non Insurable Interest', the insurance company have been deficient in their services is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

11.     The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the Appellant shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain, agony and Litigation Cost. The remaining directions shall remain intact and shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the present judgment……”.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and Judgment (Supra), the present complaint is partly allowed and we direct the Opposite Parties No.1&2 to make the payment of repair charges as claimed by complainant alongwith interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. Further, the OPs No.1 &2 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
13.  Entire compliance of aforesaid order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
15. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated: 24.08.2022

                             (Kuljit Singh)

                             President

 

 

(Renu Gandhi)              Yadwinder Pal Singh Baath

Member                         Member