ORDER

21.11.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant no.1 purchased the vehicle Innova 2.5 GX 7 IH having registration no. DL 12CD 1249 dated 28.02.2013 for a consideration of Rs.12,65,000/- from Smt. Megha Mehra complainant no.2 on 29.10.2013. It is stated that the vehicle was validly insured from OP Insurance Co. valid from 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014 and using for personal purposes. The complainant filed on record the RC in the name of complainant no.1.
2. It is stated that on 20.12.2013 the vehicle was subjected to theft and immediately complainant sent his son to the police station Paschim Vihar on 21.12.2013 and FIR no.452/2013 was registered and later on police filed untraced report. It is stated that complainant requested OP Insurance Co. to release the amount of insurance claim and submitted claim on 03.01.2014. It is stated that firstly official of OP1 delayed the matter and on 13.02.2014 denied the claim for the malafide reason that the complainant has no insurable interest as policy did not get transferred in complainants name.
3. It is stated that complainant has received letter dated 10.03.2014 from OP Insurance Co. stating that Insurance Co. was unable to entertain the claim having no.620728330 under policy no. 0152358710. It is further stated that in the same letter OP Insurance Co. wants clarification or assistance from the complainant such as untraced report and detail smart card RC activation by RTO. It is stated that it is crystal clear that the OP Insurance Co. has no intention to pay the claim of the complainant despite best efforts. It is stated that OP Insurance Co. indulge in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It is further stated that OP Insurance Co. causing harassment, mental tension, agony and financial loss to complainant.
4. The complainant is seeking an amount of Rs.12,65,000/- to the complainant no.1 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2013 till realization, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental tension, agony and financial loss to complainant and Rs.2,00,000/- towards costs of litigation expenses.
5. OP Insurance Co. filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is barred under section 26 of the CP Act, 1986 and not maintainable. It is stated that OP Insurance Co. on intimation of claim under the policy thoroughly investigated the claim and during scrutiny of the claim documents, was observed that insurance policy is in the name of Smt. Megha Mehra (complainant no.2) but as per registration certificate, the insured Megha Mehra is not owner of the vehicle and infact Mr. Lalit Kumar Gambhir complainant no.1 is the registered owner of the vehicle.
6. It is stated that Ms. Megha Mehra sold the said insured vehicle to Sh. Lalit Kumar Gambhir on 19.10.2013 but no request for transfer of insurance policy in the name of Sh. Lalit Kumar Gambhir was ever made by her for transfer of insurance policy in the name of complainant no.1. It is further stated that since on the date of loss no insurable interest of the complainant no.2 was existed, therefore, complainant no.2 was not entitled to claim amount and in view of the same the claim was repudiated under intimation to the complainants.
7. It is stated that on the date of loss/theft of the subject vehicle Mr. Lalit Kumar Gambhir was the registered owner, however, he did not take any steps to transfer the existing insurance policy in his name from the name of complainant no.2. Therefore, he is not entitled for the payment of claim under policy. It is stated that as per clause GR 17 of India Motor Tariff, it is mandatory for the transferee to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership in writing to the insurer. It is further stated that since in the present case the complainant no.1 the transferee of the subject vehicle failed to apply for the transfer of the insurance  policy within 14 days and complainant no.2 insured was left with no insurable interest in the subject vehicle, the present claim was not payable accordingly repudiated by OP Insurance Co. The OP Insurance Co. referred the judgment of New India Assurance Vs. Chandrakant Bhugangrao Jogdand RP No.4387/2009 (NC) and Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Assurance RP No.2355/2012 decided on 14.02.2014 (NC).
8. It is stated that OP Insurance Co. promptly performed all this duties without any delay as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and there is no deficiency of service, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant has not approached this hon’ble forum with unclean hands and suppressed and misrepresentated the material facts, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that the subject vehicle was stolen on 20.12.2013 and intimation was given to OP Insurance Co. on 24.12.2013 after delay of three days in gross violation of condition no.1. It is stated that independent investigator was appointed immediately. It is stated that the claim was rightly repudiated by OP Insurance Co. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. Complainant filed replication to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint.
11. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Lalit Kumar Gambhir. In the affidavit contents of complaint are reiterated. Complainant relied on copy of RC dated 28.02.2013 Ex.CW1/1, copy of insurance policy dated 01.03.2013 Ex.CW1/2, copy of receipt Ex.CW1/3, copy of cover note Ex.CW1/4, copy of RC in the name of Lalit Kumar Gambhir Ex.CW1/5, copy of FIR Ex.CW1/6, copy of claim dated 03.01.2014 Ex.CW1/7, copy of letter dated 13.02.2014 Ex.CW1/8, copy of letter dated 05.04.2014 Ex.CW1/9 and copy of reminder letter dated 28.04.2014 Ex.CW1/10.
12. OP Insurance co. filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Bhagat Deputy Vice President. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP Insurance Co. relied on copy of intimation cum preliminary claim form auto policy submitted by complainant no.2 Ex.RW1/1, office copy of letter dated 13.02.2014, 10.03.2014 and 29.04.2014 Ex.RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/4.
13. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP Insurance co.
14. We have heard Abdullah Shaied proxy for Sh. Saurabh Jain counsel for complainant and Sh. Vikrant Rathore proxy for Sh. Anuj Kumar counsel for OP. We have also gone through the record.
15. The complainant no.1 case is that he purchased Innova having registration no. DL 12CD 1249 on 19.10.2013 from complainant no.2 Megha Mehra. The insurance policy was valid from 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014 in the name of Smt. Megha Mehra. The copy of RC filed by complainant no.1 which is in the name of complainant no.1 and same was issued by Transport Department. However, the date of issuance is not mentioned by the complainant as well as in the photocopy of RC. The vehicle was stolen/theft took place on 20.12.2013 and FIR no.452/2013 was registered. After investigation police filed untraced report. The complainant lodged claim on 03.01.2014. The claim was denied by OP Insurance Co. vide letter dated 13.02.2014. According to OP Insurance Co. on the date of theft incident the insurance policy was in the name of Smt. Megha Mehra complainant no.2 but she was not the owner as the registration certificate was in the name of Mr. Lalit Kumar Gambhir complainant no.1. The complainant no.1 did not make any request for transfer of insurance policy in his name after purchasing the vehicle on 19.10.2013. The OP Insurance Co. alleged that there was no contract with complainant no.1 Sh. Lalit Kumar Gambhir on the day of incident of theft and complainant no.2 was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
16. The OP Insurance Co. referred to clause GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff which mandate for transferee to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership in writing to the insurer. The complainant also referred section 157 (1) and (2) of Motor Vehicle Act. According to which insurance policy automatically stands transferred in the name of the subsequent registered owner. According to complainant the RC was received on 20.12.2013 from RTO and on the same day the theft had taken place. However complainant admitted that he did not got issued intimation to OP Insurance Co. with regard to purchase of the vehicle after 19.10.2013 till date of theft 20.12.2013.
17. The ld. counsel for complainant referred the judgment of Mallamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.& Ors. 2014 (2) CCC 694 (SC). We have gone through this judgment. The facts of the referred judgment are distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case there is no dispute or relationship of employee and employer between the parties. The ld. counsel for complainant also referred the judgment of Sayed Vs. Gopal Krishnan and Ors. III (2017) ACC 337 (DB) (Kerala). In the referred case the fact involved with regard to accident and payment of compensation to the victim or the LRs of the victim in the accident. The counsel for complainant referred the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh 2013 (CPJ) 664 (NC). The facts of this case are also related to accident. In this case the transferee died before expiry of 30 days which are given for registration of vehicle. These facts are distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case the transferee has not died and complainant 1 had almost two months after purchase of the vehicle for transfer of insurance in his name. The counsel further referred judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh decided on 22.10.2015 SCDRC Haryana Panchkula. In this judgment it has been observed that ones the ownership of vehicle is admitted to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in the respect of the said vehicle was deem to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy would not lapse even if the intimation as required under section 103 of M.V. Act is not given to insurer. The complainant being the registered owner was entitled to benefits of the insurance till date the motorcycle remained in his name. However in the present case the complainant has more than two months after purchase of the vehicle for intimation and applying for transfer of insurance. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not disclosed the date when he had applied for transfer of RC which was received on 20.12.2013.
18. The OP counsel relied on judgment of Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd ltd. Vs. Doctor Manoj Kumar Khatri RP No.965/2015 (NC) decided on 03.05.2018. In this judgment GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations has been discussed and held that it is the duty of the purchaser to get the insurance policy transferred in their name after the sale and also to get the registration transferred and insurance company will within the rights to repudiate the claim. The OP counsel further relied on judgment of Satwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2017) CPJ 183 (NC). In this judgment it has been observed that complainant did not obtain insurance coverage in his own name, therefore, not entitled to claim reimbursement. It was also observed that the insured had already sold the car to someone else, therefore, the insured had no insurable interest.
19. We have gone through the entire record and judgments discussed hereinabove and we are of considered opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case complainant no.1 admitted that he had purchased the vehicle in question on 19.10.2013 from complainant no.2 and the vehicle in question was stolen on 20.12.2013 after about two months. During two months complainant no.1did not take any steps to transfer the insurance in his name. The complainant has also not disclosed when he had applied for transfer of registration certificate which was issued and received on 20.12.2013. Fortunately on the same day the vehicle was stolen. In these circumstances section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act has no role to play and it cannot be extended in these special circumstances of the case.
20. On the basis of above observation and discussion the repudiation letter dated 13.02.2014 is fair, legal and justified. Hence, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
21. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  21.11.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER