West Bengal

Bankura

CC/93/2013

Biswanath Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Legal Manager Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Oct 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

Consumer Complaint No. 93/2013

          Date of Filing: 12.11.2013

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.                                     

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Amitava Chatterjee

For the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Chandi Charan Adhvaryyu

Complainant 

Sri Biswanth Dutta, S/o Lata Bimalananda Dutta, Vill-Kashipur, Dist.Purulia

Opposite Party

1.Legal Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office-Bankura, SBI Main Bldg, Machantala, Bankura

2.Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd,Mani Square, 6^th Floor, 164 Maniktala Main Rd., Canal Circle Rd., Kol-54

 

 JUDGEMENT 

Dated:12-10-2023

The case is fixed for delivery of Judgement.

The Complainant’s case is that he is a Transferee registered owner of a four wheeler Private Bolero Jeep No. being JH-05-AC/2463 w.e.f.30/01/2012 duly insured with O.P. Insurance Co., Policy No. being OG-13-2401-1802-00000944 valid from 12/03/2011 to 11/03/2012. On 4-5/03/2012 at night the said vehicle has been stolen away by some unknown miscreants lying in front of the Hotel Ashirbad Inn BC-74, Rabindra Pally, Kestopur, Kolkata-101 and the matter of theft was reported in writing to Baguihati P.S. which was registered as Baguihati P.S. Case No.179 of 2012, dated: 05/03/2012 u/s 379 of I.P.C. and also reported to the O.P. Insurance Co. on 09/03/2012 by preferring claim application for compensation of Rs.6,19,000/- for the same. But the claim was repudiated by the O.P./Insurance Co. by letter dt.26/12/2012 stating that the stolen vehicle was transferred in the name of the Complainant w.e.f. 20/03/2012 but the theft of the vehicle took place on 05/03/2012 with further ground for using the vehicle on hire at the time of occurrence. Thereafter the Complainant tried to convince the O.P. by serving legal notice but in vain. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

The O.P. /Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version taking the same plea as mentioned in the repudiation letter dated: 26/12/2012. The O.P. has therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

Written examination in chief on affidavit on behalf of O.P./Insurance Co. and the written interrogatories thereof by the Complainant and the written reply of interrogatories by O.P./Insurance Co. are on record.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……p/2

                                                                                                      Page: 2

-: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents on both sides including written argument of the O.P. the Commission finds that the original owner of the stolen vehicle was one Mukesh Das of Jharkhand and he is alleged to have transferred the same in favour of the Complainant w.e.f. 30/01/2012 as reflected in the duplicate copy of Registration Certificate issued by the concerned R.T.O., East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand but on verification through relevant portal (VAAHAN) the same could not be authenticated as the original owner Mukesh Das is still  being displayed therein. Though the Insurance Policy stands and endorsed in the name of the Complainant at the material point of time but the Complainant could not produce any sale letter of the vehicle to substantiate his ownership of the vehicle.

U/s 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 a vehicle is registered with the concerned R.T.O. after the transfer takes place. Entry of the vehicle in the Registration Certificate is the proof of registration with the concerned R.T.O. but it does not pre-suppose the ownership of the vehicle which is to be decided in terms of Section 19 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which specifically provides that the property passes when it is intended to pass and Section 19(1) of the said Act stipulates that where there is a contract for sale of specific or ascertained goods, property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred like any other transfer of movable or immovable property.

It is therefore evident that there must be execution of transfer first by and between the parties and then registration will follow. However such execution may be oral or in writing in terms of Section 5 of Sale of  Goods Act, 1930. The Complainant has not however pleaded whether the transfer of the vehicle took place orally or in writing. It is therefore clear from Section 19 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 that there must be a contract for sale between the buyer and the seller in respect of transfer of movable property like vehicle.

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant tried to impress upon the Commission that the Registration Certificate is the conclusive proof of the ownership of the vehicle. The Commission is unable to accept this contention as in case of lodging insurance claim consequent upon the change of ownerhip the claimant apart from producing the Registration Certificate must show the sale letter of the vehicle otherwise the authority like the district Commission will be reluctant to consider the claim application.

Without going into the controversy as to the authenticity of the duplicate Registration Certificate as contended by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Insurance Co. the Commission is of the view that without proof of the ownership of the vehicle by the sale letter in terms of Section 19 of sale of Goods Act, 1930 the prayer for relief as claimed by the Complainant cannot be considered at this stage.

                                                                                                                                                                                       Contd……p/3

                                                                                           Page: 3                                                                                                                     

O.P./Insurance Co. could not however substantiate the defence case for repudiation of the claim on the ground that the stolen vehicle was at the material time being used on hire. Accordingly the case fails for want of proof on the point of ownership of the stolen vehicle.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT            HON’BLE MEMBER