Haryana

StateCommission

A/862/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARUN KUMAR JANGRA - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.SIDHU

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      862 of 2016

Date of Institution:       22.09.2016

Date of Decision :       26.10.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Narwana, District Jind through its Branch Manager of Narwana Branch, through authorized signatory in Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Tarun Kumar Jangra s/o Shri Davinder Kumar, Resident of R-90, Model Town, Narwana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                      Respondent-complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for appellant.

O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.118 of 2012.

2.                Car-Maruti Suzuki, bearing registration No.HR-10-T-3699 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party (appellant herein) for the period 16^th July, 2014 to 15^th July, 2015 vide Insurance Policy Annexure A-3. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.4,50,000/-. The car was purchased by Tarun Kumar Jangra-complainant/respondent from its previous owner Rajat Batra on 7^th July, 2014 who gave affidavit and other documents for transferring the car in favour of the complainant. The car met with an accident on 25^th August, 2014 and damaged. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite party-Insurance Company contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that on the date of accident, that is, 25^th August, 2014 the car was insured in the name of Rajat Batra. Despite the fact that the complainant had purchased the car on 7^th July, 2014, the policy was not got transferred in the name of the complainant. Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“...Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,600/- (Rs.one lac thirty three thousand and six hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from receiving certified copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.9.2015 till its realization. We assessed Rs.3300/- (Rs.three thousand and three hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

5.                Counsel heard. File perused.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from its previous owner Rajat Batra and applied for transfer of ownership in his name with the Registering Authority and the Registration Certificate was transferred in his name on 29^th August, 2014. He applied for transfer of Insurance Policy in his favour on 1^st September, 2014. However, the vehicle met with an accident on 25^th August, 2014. The complainant informed the Insurance Company about the accident on 27^th August, 2014. Claim being lodged was repudiated only on the ground that on the date of accident, the complainant had not become the owner of the car.

7.                Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as under:-

“157. Transfer of certificate of insurance- (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.

[Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance]

(2)     The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.”

8.                Undisputedly, the complainant had applied for change of ownership in the record of Registering Authority before the date of accident and has to seek the transfer of Insurance Policy in his name within 14 days from the said transfer. The complainant has specifically pleaded in paragraph No.2 of the complaint that upon purchase of the vehicle on 7^th July, 2014, he had approached the office of the Insurance Company-opposite party for change of the Insurance Policy in his name. However, he was advised by the opposite party to apply for transfer of the policy after the vehicle was transferred in his name. In the corresponding paragraph of the reply, the opposite party-Insurance Company did not deny this fact. The plea raised was that the transferee had not intimated within 14 days of the transfer. The vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 29^th August, 2014. 30^th August, 2014 was holiday and on 1^st September, 2014 he applied to the Insurance Company-opposite party for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his name. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the complainant complied with the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as terms of the Insurance Policy. He had given intimation to the Insurance Company before the date of accident and had applied to the Insurance Company to transfer the policy in his name within two working days. Thus, there was no violation in the part of complainant. In view of this no ground to interfere in the order of the District Forum is made out. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

 9.               In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 26.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL