Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2390

CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GEN.INSU.CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT SAPNA - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2390 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 17.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.185/2018 by District Commission, Mandsaur)

 

CHOLAMANDLAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED                                                                                   …                 APPELLANT

 

           Versus

 

SMT. SAPNA W/O SHRI ALOK KUMAR JHAMAR.                                       …             RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

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

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :     MEMBER

     

 

                                      O R D E R

 

20.05.2024

 

      Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

      None for the respondent though served.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                   The opposite party/appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.185/2018 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2.                Necessary facts leading to the complaint are that the complainant’s vehicle Maruti Swift bearing registration number GJ-06 HL-4444 was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 02.12.2016 to 01.12.2017 for IDV

-2-

Rs.6,50,000/- under which the risk was covered without depreciation. It is submitted that on 01.11.2017 when the complainant’s driver Sunil Kumar took the subject vehicle from Mandsaur to Ratlam, the subject vehicle met with an accident of which intimation was given by the driver to Police Chowki Dalod, Police Station Bhavgarh District Mandsaur on which report was lodged in Rojnamcha. The insurance company was also duly informed who appointed surveyor in the matter. He had to incur Rs.2,06,803/- towards repairs of the subject vehicle.  The claim filed with the insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company without any valid reasons. Aggrieved complainant therefore filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company before the District Commission seeking claim amount of Rs.2,06,803/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.                The opposite party/respondent-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission admitting the fact of insurance of subject vehicle submitted that earlier the vehicle was in insured in complainant’s husband’s name Alok Kumar Jhamar which was transferred in the name of Sapna by way of endorsement to that effect. It is submitted that during investigation it was found that earlier the subject vehicle was sold to Himmat Singh and thereafter on 12.01.2015 it was sold to Shambu Lal through agreement and therefore, the vehicle was not in possession of the complainant. The insurance company also raised objection that District Commission Mandsaur has no territorial jurisdiction

-3-

to entertain the complaint. In the light of the written reply it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the insurance company to pay Rs.1,23,698/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant within a period of 30 days. Compensation of Rs.25,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded. It is also directed that insurance company shall pay 7% interest on the aforesaid amounts from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 13.11.2018 till payment.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party-insurance company argued that the subject vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 03.04.2014 and since then the subject vehicle was continuously insured in the name of the complainant. During investigation it was found that earlier to accident, the subject was sold to Himmat Singh and thereafter on 12.01.2015 it was sold to Shambu Lal through agreement, however, no steps were taken to change the name in RTO and in insurance policy. He argued that agreement of sale is dated 12.01.2015 and the accident took place on 11.01.2017, therefore, the vehicle was not in possession of the complainant and on the date of accident, the complainant was not having insurable interest in the subject vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company has rightly denied the claim. He argued that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint.

-4-

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on careful perusal of the evidence available on record we find that it is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle GJ-06 HL-4444 was registered in the name of complainant Sapna W/O Alok Kumar Jhamar on 03.04.2014 for the period till 02.04.2029 (C-1). The complainant’s vehicle was insured with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 02.12.2016 to 01.12.2017 (C-2) in the name of her husband Alok Kumar Jhamar which was admittedly transferred in the name of complainant by way of endorsement w.e.f. from 02.12.2016 to 01.12.2017. The subject vehicle met with an accident on 11.01.2017 of which report was lodged by the complainant’s driver with the Police Chowki-Daloda, Police Station-Bhavgarh, District-Mandsaur.  

8.                It is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was registered in the name of the complainant.  C-1 is the registration certificate of the subject vehicle in the name of the complainant valid up to 02.04.2029. The insurance company in paragraph 2 of its reply has stated that the subject vehicle was insured with the opposite party insurance company under the Private Car Package Policy for the period w.e.f. 02.12.2016 to 01.12.2017 in the name of Alok Kumar Jhamar later the policy was transferred in the name of complainant Sapna Jhamar by way of endorsement. Similar pleading is taken in paragraph 4 of the written arguments filed by the opposite party. Also in the no claim letter (D-1), survey report(D-2), investigation report (D-5) the name of the insured is

-5-

mentioned as Sapna Jhamar. Thus considering the admitted fact by the insurance company it is inferred that the subject vehicle was insured in the name of the complainant Sapna. Thus at the time of accident, the vehicle was registered and insured in the name of the complainant. 

9.                The insurance company vide letter dated 08.02.2017 (D-1) repudiated the claim stating that “On careful perusal of the claim documents and after independent inquiry, it is inferred that the vehicle has been sold to Shambhulal Mabniya before the date of loss. In view of these established facts, it is concluded that you are not having insurable interest in the vehicle at the material time of accident. The insurance company on the strength of sale agreement dated 12.01.2015 executed between one Himmat Singh and Shambhulal reached to a conclusion that the subject vehicle has been first sold to one Himmat Singh who in turn sold the same to Shambhulal reached to a conclusion that the complainant is not having insurable interest in the subject vehicle.  In view of the aforesaid it is well established that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was registered and insured in the name of the complainant, the alleged sale agreement has no value and thus the repudiation of claim by the insurance company is wholly unjustified and the complainant is entitled to get the claim as assessed by the surveyor.

10.               In cases where registration and insurance of any vehicle is not transferred by the original owner in favour of the person to which it has been

-6-

alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, the original insured person remains as the ‘owner’ for the purposes of Motor Vehicles Act under Section 2(30) and a claim filed by him/her is maintainable with the respective insurance company.  Since the registration and insurance was still in the name of the complainant on the date of accident, the complainant was entitled to raise a claim with the insurance company since she had insurable interest in the subject vehicle.

11.               Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2632 of 2020 (Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.) decided on June 18, 2020 in similar facts and circumstances has held that “The dictum of this Court that the registered owner continues to remain owner and when the vehicle is insured in the name of registered owner, the insurer would remain liable notwithstanding any transfer would apply equally in the case of claims made by the insured himself in case of an accident.  If the insured continues to remain the owner in law in view of statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in particular Section 2(30) thereof, the insurer cannot evade its liability. 

12.               Similar view is taken by this Commission in First Appeal No.2060/2013 (Shalini Thakur Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 18.09.2023, First Appeal No.1131/2017 (Ashok Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 22.03.2024 and in First Appeal 700/2016  (Jawahar Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd) decided on 23.04.2024.

-7-

13.               In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the insurance company is deficient in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-insurable interest.  The District Commission has rightly allowing the complaint directed the insurance company to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant with compensation and costs. Thus we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

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

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

            Acting President                             Member