Delhi

North East

CC/186/2017

Smt. Vinita - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 186/17

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Vinita D/o Shri Rajesh R/o 231, Tikona Park, Jawala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
	TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd 810-816, 8th Floor, world Trade Tower, Sector 16, Noida, U.P.   Also at: DPJ-415, 4th Floor, DLF Tower-B Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

07.06.2017 01.02.2019 01.02.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts of the present complaint shorn of unnecessary details as narrated by the complainant are that she had taken Two Wheeler Package Policy from OP for motorcycle TVS Apache RTR 180 bearing registration no. DL 1S AA 1791 vide policy no. 064001/0186117149/000000/00 on payment of gross premium of Rs. 2,070/- for an IDV of Rs. 73,644/- w.e.f. 30.07.2016 to 29.07.2016. However, the subject motorcycle was stolen on 30.11.2016 and FIR bearing no. 035228/16 under Section 379 IPC was lodged on 01.12.2016. The complainant approached the OPs office and lodged claim for the insurance of the subject motorcycle and submitted the requisite documents viz FIR etc to OP but was denied the insurance claim by OP for which the complainant sent legal notice dated 23.03.2017 to the OP through her counsel. However the OP vide repudiation letter dated 07.04.2017, rejected the claim of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved by such wrongful rejection of valid claim by OP which the complainant was legally entitled to, the complainant was compelled to initiate legal proceedings by way of the present consumer complaint against the OP praying for issuance of directions against the OP to release the IDV amount i.e. Rs. 73,644/- of the subject motorcycle stolen and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and damages and Rs. 5,500/- towards legal notice charges.

Complainant has attached copy of cover note / policy schedule for insurance cover with respect to the subject motorcycle given by OP, copy of vehicle purchase invoice dated 30.07.2016 issued from SD motors, Dilshad Garden, copy of Registration Certificate, copy of sale certificate dated 15.11.2016 for sale of the subject motorcycle by complainant to Mr. Asif through car dealer namely Ishaan Motors vide receipt no. 5662 for sale consideration of Rs. 64,000/-, copy of legal notice dated 23.03.2017 by complainant’s counsel to OP alongwith AD cards and copy of repudiation letter dated 07.04.2017 by OP to the complainant on grounds of delayed intimation and no insurable interest.

2. Notice was issue to the OP on 13.07.2017. OP entered appearance and filed written statement on 25.09.2017 in which it resisted the present complaint by pleading preliminary objection that on intimation of claim by the complainant, when the OP thoroughly investigated the claim and scrutinized the claim documents, it discovered that the insurance policy was in the name of the complainant but the RC of the subject vehicle was in the name of one Mr. Asif who was the purchaser of the subject vehicle and the registered owner of the said vehicle which was sold by the complainant to Mr. Asif through Ishaan Motors on 15.11.2016 by way of sale letter on due handing over of possession of the subject vehicle but no request for transfer of the insurance policy in the name of Mr. Asif was ever made by her or the subsequent owner. Therefore the OP urged that on the date of loss / accident, the complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle and not entitled to the claim amount which claim was rightfully repudiated by OP. OP further urged that the theft claim was reported by Mr. Asif and the claim form filled and filed by him and not by the complainant. OP contended that on the date of loss/theft of the vehicle, Mr. Asif despite being registered owner of the subject vehicle did not take any steps to transfer the existing insurance policy in his name from the complainant, therefore OP had no contract of insurance with him and Mr. Asif had no locus standi to make any claim against the OP. OP relied upon Indian Motor Tariff Guidelines, relevant clause being GR.17 pertaining to transfer of ownership and compliance for transfer of registration and insurance certificate in such event in which the transferee is to apply within 14 days from date of transfer to the insurer with the details of registration of vehicle, date of transfer, previous owner of vehicle and number and date of insurance policy so that the insurer may make necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance. However, in the present case Mr. Asif failed to apply for such transfer despite being purchaser of the subject vehicle and the complainant having sold the vehicle was left with no insurable interest. OP further took the defence of delayed intimation of theft by the complainant in as much as the theft occurred of the subject motorcycle on 30.11.2016 but the intimation to the OP thereof was given on 01.02.2017 after a delay of 63 days in clear violation of condition No. 1 and 8 of the policy which stipulated that notice be given in written to the OP immediately on occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and due observance and fulfillment of the term and conditions of the policy by the insured both of which were breached by the complainant, depriving the right of OP to investigate in to the veracity of the claim and therefore the OP was not liable to indemnify the loss. The OP placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Chadrakant Bhujangrao Jogdand in RP no. 4387 of 2009 passed on 11.03.2010 in which Hon’ble National Commission in a case where the complainant got the vehicle transferred in his name in RTO record but the insurance continued in the name of previous owner held that complainant had no insurable interest and was not entitled to sum insured and upheld the repudiation by insurance company. Further OP relied upon judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Sandeep Gupta Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd in RP No. 2355/2012 passed on 14.02.2014 in which Hon’ble NCDRC, in view of provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act, Tariff Regulation and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the said judgment, held that if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about transfer of RC in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of transferee, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in case of own damage of vehicle and upheld the repudiation of claim as justified. OP further contended that it had promptly performed its duty as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy without any negligence and therefore pleaded not guilty of defective / deficient service. Lastly OP urged in its defence that it is not the complainant but Mr. Asif Khan, the buyer/owner of insured vehicle who had lodged the FIR on 01.12.2016 and had intimated the OP about the theft of the subject vehicle on 01.02.2017 and filed the claim form. Therefore the OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint as not maintainable.

OP has filed copy of specific power of attorney dated 30.09.2016 issued by Chief Claim Officer in favor of Mr. Mohd Azhar Wasi, Head Claims (North Zone) as Constituted Attorney, copy of cover note and two wheeler package policy alongwith Indian Motor Tariff Rules and Regulations, copy of sale certificate dated 15.11.2016 issued by Ishaan Motors certifying sale of subject vehicle by complainant to Mr. Asif Khan, copy of RC of complainant, copy of RC of Mr. Asif with endorsement by Asif (original RC with me), copy of intimation cum preliminary claim form filed by Mr. Asif with OP, copy of claim intimation report sent by Mr. Asif to investigator Globe Claims vide e-mail dated 08.02.2017, copy of investigation report dated 13.02.2017 by Globe Claims Investigation Agency received by OP on 21.02.2017, copy of repudiation letters dated 21.02.2017 and 07.04.2017 by OP to complainant with CC to Mr. Asif on grounds of delay in intimation and no insurable interest and copies of judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC relied upon by OP.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit of OP was filed by the complainant in reassertion of her grievance and reaffirming averments made in the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP in reassertion of his defence of repudiation of claim on grounds of no insurable interest and delayed intimation in view of clause GR.17 of Indian Motor Tariff, violation of condition No. 1 and 8 of the two wheeler package policy and investigation report by Globe Claim Investigation Agency as also settled proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble NCDRC relied upon by the OP in its defence. The OP exhibited documents relied upon / filed alongwith written statement as exhibit RW1/1 to RW1/9.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reinforcement of their grievance / defence. OP also placed on record judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Satvant Singh Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd II

(2017) CPJ 183 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission in a where the complainant had not obtained insurance coverage in his own name held that he was not entitled to claim reimbursement of expenses for the accident of the vehicle as he had no insurable interest on the same.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions in terms of respective pleadings and arguments put forth and have thoroughly perused the documentary evidence placed before us.

6. It is not in dispute and not rebutted by the complainant either the factum of sale of the subject motorcycle bearing no. DL 1S AA 1791 by the complainant to one Mr. Asif Khan on 15.11.2016 during the subsistence of the policy period in which period the subject vehicle was stolen as also the fact that only the registration certificate was got transferred by the complainant in favour of Mr. Asif which can be corroborated by his hand written endorsement dated 10.02.2016 on the said RC stating ‘original RC is with me’. However, the insurance certificate continued to be in the name of complainant and never got transferred in the name of Mr. Asif. Notwithstanding the same the factum of theft of the subject motorcycle was reported to OP by Mr. Asif and the FIR was also registered by Mr. Asif since the subject motorcycle was in his possession / ownership at his shop address at Kala Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi from where it was stolen. All correspondence in terms of claim intimation, filing claim form and submitting first notification loss report to investigator of OP was done by Mr. Asif. As per the investigation report dated 13.02.2017 filed by Globe Claims Investigation Agency, the face of the complainant was Mr. Asif Khan and the complainant herein i.e. the insured had admitted having sold her vehicle to a dealer in Karol Bagh, Delhi and Mr. Asif being the second owner of the subject vehicle who was regularly using the same but did not get the insurance transferred in his name. The investigator, in his observation after thorough detailing reached the conclusion that not only was there a delayed intimation of theft of more than two months but also no transfer of insurance by complainant in favour of Mr. Asif.
7. In view of the facts of the present case and acts of omission / commission on the part of complainant in failure to take steps to get the insurance certificate transferred in the name of Mr. Asif, she failed to comply with the terms and condition of the insurance policy as also Motor Tariff General Regulation. The law laid by Hon’ble NCDRC in such cases is settled and we are of the firm view that the complainant had no insurable interest with regard to the subject vehicle in view of having already sold it to Mr. Asif and delay in intimation of theft also does not redeem her position or case in any manner. As the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating the claim. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim and the complaint is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to costs.          
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 01.02.2019

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member