Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1015/2015

Gurbinder Singh Cheema - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

shri Gurbinder Singh Cheema

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1015

                                                Instituted on:    08.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       10.03.2016

 

Gurbinder Singh Cheema, Advocate 41 years, son of Col. Surjit Singh, resident of Teacher Colony, Opp. Raj High School, Patiala Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The New India Assurance Company Limited, Division Office –I, 7, Chotti Baradari, The Mall, Patiala, through its Divisional Manager.

2.             The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vikas Elisha, Adv.

For Opp. parties       :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurbinder Singh Cheema, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the owner of the Maruti Swift car bearing registration number PB-11-BB-0885 which was insured with the Ops under policy number LDH/2014/979331 for the period from 3.6.2014 to 2.6.2015. It is further averred that the car in question met with an accident on 6.5.2015 at about 5.00 PM while he was coming towards his house from the Patiala side on the main road as suddenly one wild animal came in front of the car, as a result of which one blue colour matador being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the behind in a very high speed and scratched/damaged the right side of the car of the complainant and due to the accident both bumpers, right side of the car, radiator, air conditioner, rear lights, bonnet and engine got ceased. It is further averred that the complainant also got registered DDR number 43 dated 6.5.2015 with the SHO City Sangrur. It is further averred that on the next day, written intimation regarding the accident was also given to the OP along with the RC of the vehicle/driving license/insurance policy and copy of DDR etc. It is further averred that the complainant had purchased the said car in the month of December, 2014, as such the policy was in the name of the previous owner, hence the complainant intimated the OPs to transfer the said insurance policy in the name of the complainant by registered letter dated 6.5.2015.  Thereafter after receipt of the intimation from the complainant about the accident, the Ops appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal and Jaswant Sharma, surveyors to inspect  the damaged car of the complainant, which was duly inspected and thereafter the car in question was got repaired from Kissan Motor Garage, Sangrur, where an amount of Rs.126915/- was spent by the complainant, as such the complainant approached the Ops to pay the requisite claim, but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant had earlier filed a complaint before this Forum, which was decided on 3.8.2015 whereby the Ops were directed to decide the claim within 30 days, however, the Ops did not comply with the orders till the filing of the complaint.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,26,915/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, it has been stated that the car in question bearing registration number PB-11-BB-0885 belonging to Sanjiv Singla son of Krishan Singla was insured with the Op number 1 w.e.f. 3.6.2014 to 2.6.2015 for Rs.4,41,000/-. It is further stated that on 11.5.2015, the OP number 1 received a letter dated 6.5.2015 from the complainant for transfer of the car in question in his name, but the same was sent thereafter being an antedated letter and that after receiving the letter on 11.5.2015, the OPs gave the reply and asked him to submit the original policy, no objection letter from the previous owner for transfer of the insurance and a fee amounting to Rs.57/- and other details etc.  It is further averred that on 7.6.2015, the OP number 2 received a letter from the complainant regarding accident of the above said vehicle, of which DDR dated 6.5.2015 was also recorded in PS City Sangrur, from the perusal of which it reveals that the car had damaged due to struck with a roadside tree when he was coming to Fowara Chowk from Patiala Road, Sangrur.  It is denied that the vehicle in question met with an accident.  It is stated that the record shows that everything has happened on 6.5.2015 which creates some doubt and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  I It has been further averred that the OP number 2 appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.62,334/- as loss and Rs.1000/- regarding salvage value as per his report dated 15.7.2015. It is further averred that the said surveyor also submitted an affidavit dated 1.11.2014 and delivery letter of M/s. R.S.Motors which shows that the said concern purchased the said car from registered owner Sanjiv Singla, therefore, the complainant was not the owner of the car in question at the time of alleged accident.   It is further averred that the complainant has no insurable interest at the time of accident.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OPs. Lastly, the Ops have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application to DTO, Sangrur, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of order dated 3.8.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-5 copy of application, Ex.C-6 copy of DDR, Ex.C-7 copy of notice dated 7.5.2015, Ex.C-8 copy of DL, Ex.C-9 copy of notice dated 6.5.2015, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-20 copies of bills and Ex.C-21 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 copy of RC, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 6.5.2015,Ex.OP-5 copy of letter, Ex.OP-6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP-7 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-8 copy of delivery letter, Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 copies of affidavits, Ex.OP-11 copy of RC verification letter, Ex.OP-12 copy of report dated 12.8.2015, Ex.OP-13 copy of letter dated 28.9.2015, Ex.OP-14 and Ex.OP-15 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs.  It is the own case of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question from one Sanjiv Singla son of Krishan Singla, which was got transferred from the District Transport Officer, Sangrur on 6.5.2015 by paying the requisite fee, as is evident from the copy of endorsement on the application Ex.C-1.  Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are the copies of fee/receipts in the name of the complainant Gurbinder Singh Cheema.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of cover note, which is in the name of previous owner Shri Sanjiv Singla. Ex.C-5 is the copy of application addressed to the SHO, Police Station City, Sangrur for registration of FIR and Ex.C-6 is the copy of DDR.  The complainant is aggrieved on rejecting the claim of the complainant by the Ops on the ground that the claim of the complainant is doubtful as mentioned in the written reply filed by the OPs, as everything was done by the complainant on 6.5.2015 i.e. the car met with an accident on 6.5.2015, transfer fee was deposited on 6.5.2015, DDR was lodged on 6.5.2015 and application for transfer of the policy was made on 6.5.2015.  Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim of the damaged car from the OPs or not.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 6.5.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy which was for the period from 3.6.2014 to 2.6.2015.  It is also not in dispute that the car in question was transferred on 6.5.2015 in the name of the complainant, but at the time of accident the policy in question was not transferred in the name of the complainant, though he had applied to the OPs for transfer of the policy in question.   The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the registration certificate of the car was transferred in the name of the complainant on 6.5.2015, but the complainant had the time of fourteen days to apply for the transfer of the insurance after the transfer of the registration certificate of the vehicle.  To support such a contention, the complainant has cited GR-17 of the Insurance, which is reproduced as ".... On transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.  The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance....."   Further in Shish Pal versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others 2014(2) CLT 443 (CHD), it has been held that the claim cannot be repudiated on the ground that at the time of theft the complainant has no insurable interest, in the truck, in question and that the truck, already stood transferred/sold, in favour of the complainant and no intimation, in respect of the same had been given to the insurance company for transfer of the insurance policy in his name.  The truck, was registered in the name of the complainant on 10.10.2011.  According to GR-17 the complainant could intimate the insurer, within 14 days, from the date of registration of the truck in his name. However, before that time lapsed, in the meanwhile, the truck, was stolen.  Held that it could not be said that on the date of theft of the truck, there was no insurable interest or there was violation of GR-17.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Narayan Singh versus India Assurance Company Limited 2008(1) CLT 46 (NC)   , wherein it has been held that the insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the complainant. In any set of circumstances, even under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act transfer application is to be made within a period of 14 days and those 14 days were not over in the present case.   Similar is the position in the present case, as the car in question was transferred on 06.05.2015 and the complainant had a period of 14 days meaning thereby the complainant could apply to the insurance company/OPs for transfer of the insurance policy upto 20.05.2015, whereas the vehicle in question met with an accident on the same date i.e. 6.5.2015.   The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Om Parkash Gupta and another 2009(1) CPJ 183(NC), wherein the insurance company repudiated the claim of the stolen vehicle on the ground that the complainant had no insurable interest on the contention that the vehicle transferred to transferee, but the insurance policy was not transferred. It was held that as per GR-10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee on sale of vehicle, benefits under the policy on date of transfer, automatically accrue to the new owner and the complainant was held entitled to benefits accruing from the policy.   Similar is the position in another judgment namely Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Capt. Ajay Singh Yadav and another 2008(2) CPJ 71.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Mallamma (Dead) by LRs versus National Insurance Company Limited and others 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 617 (SC) wherein it has been held that under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whenever a vehicle is transferred ownership of vehicle also stood transferred. Further similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited versus Rajvinder Kaur and others 2010(4) PLR 233.

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has cited Rikhi Ram and another versus Smt. Sukhrania and others 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 756, wherein it has been held that the transferee is a third party for that purpose except that he cannot claim personal damage to the vehicle from the insurer because that part of insurance is not compulsory and remains personal to the person insured.  Further the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Buddhi Prakash Jain versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. IV(2015) CPJ 337 (NC) and United India Insurance Company Limited versus Goli Sridhar and another 2012(1) CPJ 101 (NC), wherein it has been stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs, as purchased vehicle by the complainant was not got transferred in the name of the complainant, as such, it was held that the insurer cannot be held liable to pay insurance claim in case of own damage of vehicle. But, in the present case, the complainant has already got transferred the vehicle in his name on 6.5.2015 and a period of fourteen days had not elapsed for getting the insurance policy transferred in his name as stated in the GR-17.  Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that the OPs have already got the full premium for the car in question and the accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy, as such, the Ops cannot refuse to pay the genuine claim of the complainant.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,26,915/-, but we are unable to accept such a  contention of the complainant, whereas the copy of survey report is on record as Ex.OP-7.  A bare perusal of the report Ex.OP-7 of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal shows that he has assessed an amount of Rs.62,334/-, as such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the claim of the complainant is allowed to the tune of Rs.62,334/-.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.62,334/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.09.2015 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 10, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member