STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      150 of 2015

Date of Institution:      12.02.2015

Date of Decision :       26.05.2015

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Resident of Village Paintawas Khurd, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Raghav Gulati, proxy counsel for Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated November 28^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Bhiwani.

2.      Surender Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) purchased a Jeep bearing registration No.12K-0440, Bolero make, from Mukesh s/o Sh. Kulbir. The Registration Certificate of the above said vehicle was transferred in his name. It was insured with the Insurance Company from May 30^th, 2011 to May 29^th, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Annexure R-2. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the vehicle was Rs.3,50,000/-.

3.      On March 3^rd, 2012, the vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the area of Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura. FIR No.87 (Annexure C-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura on March 4^th, 2012. The Insurance Company was informed immediately. The Police submitted untraced report Annexure C-3. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

4.      The Insurance Company-opposite party contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as the insurance policy was purchased by Mukesh s/o Sh. Kulbir and not by the complainant. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum after evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company as under:-

“1.     To pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

3.      The complainant is directed to hand over the letter of subrogation and keys to the company and also directed to get the R.C. transferred.

The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.”

6.      The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was that vide Certificate (Annexure-A), the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on September 30^th, 2011 while the theft took place on March 3^rd, 2012. The complainant did not inform the Insurance Company about the change of ownership and thus the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insurable benefits to the complainant.

7.      The Insurance Company did not dispute that the vehicle was insured with it at the time of theft. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallamma (Dead) by LRs versus National Insurance Company Limited & others, 2014(3) CLT 1, held that once the ownership of vehicle is admitted to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle shall deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy would not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not given to the insurer. It was held as under:-

“Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 157 – Insurance claim –Transfer of ownership – Once the ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the M.V. Act is not given to the insurer.”

8.      In view of the above, the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated complainant’s claim. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL