BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.12/14.

Date of instt.: 13.01.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 27.08.2015.

Virender Singh son of Sh. Mahabir Singh R/o Village Umra, Tehsil Hansi, Distt. Hissar (Haryana).

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.510/14, Pehowa Road, Govind Nagar, Kaithal (Haryana).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ranbir Rana, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his Maruti Swift VDI bearing registration No.HR-21C-1818 with the Op vide cover note No.35360431120100008172 valid w.e.f. 23.12.2012 to 22.12.2013 and he paid a premium of Rs.6856/- to the Op.  It is alleged that on 04.02.2012 the above-said vehicle met with an accident and a DDR No.28 dt. 04.02.2013 was registered in Police Station Sadood, Distt. Sangrur (Pb.).  Information regarding accident was given to Op.  An estimate of Rs.2,46,266.21 paise was made by Eakansh Motors Kaithal.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op as enumerated under the Consumer Protection Act and thus, the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant is not even consumer qua the answering Op as he is not having any insurable interest with the answering Op since as per records of answering Op initially, the insurance of vehicle in question was in the name of Sh. Sunil Dutt Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Bhardwaj r/o Multan Colony, Jind Road, Hansi and thereafter, the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Sh. Mahender Singh, hence, on the request of Sh. Sunil Dutt Sharma, the insurance of vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Sh. Mahender Singh and it still stands in the name of Sh. Mahender Singh and not in the name of complainant.  Since the complainant was not having any insurable interest and thus, has no right to file the complaint.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to P6 and closed evidence on 02.03.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R5 and closed evidence on 04.05.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     It is argued by the counsel for complainant that the complainant is owner of Maruti Swift VDI bearing registration No.HR-21C-1818 and he placed the copy of registration certificate as Ex.P2.  He further argued that the said car bearing registration No.HR-21C-1818 was insured with the Op as per policy, Ex.P3 which was valid from 23.12.2012 to 22.12.2013.  He further argued that the said car met with an accident on 04.02.2013 at about 7.00 p.m. with a Bolero No.HR-26BC/9886 and a DDR No.28 dt. 04.02.2013 has been registered in P.S.Sadood, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).  The complainant got repaired his car from Eakansh Motors Pvt. Kaithal and spent Rs.2,46,266.21 paise.  He also argued that at the time of accident, survey was also conducted by the surveyor of the Op.  He further argued that the Op has wrongly declined the claim of complainant as the car in question was duly insured with the Op.  On the other hand, the counsel for Op has argued that the complainant is not consumer qua the Op as the vehicle in question was insured in the name of one Sunil Dutt Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Bhardwaj, r/o Multan Colony, Jnd Road, Hansi and not in the name of complainant.  The counsel for Op further argued that on the request of said Sunil Dutt Sharma, the insurance of vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Sh. Mahender Singh and it still stands in the name of Mahender Singh and not in the name of complainant.  He further argued that if the complainant has purchased the vehicle, he should have transferred the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the transfer of vehicle in his name but the complainant has not do so.  So, he is not entitled to any claim.

6.     In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that no doubt, the complainant is owner of the car bearing registration No.HR-21C-1818, as is clear from the Ex.P2 but he has not got transferred the insurance policy in his name.  The copy of policy placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.P3 clearly shows that the same was in the name of Sunil Dutt Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Bhardwaj.  The complainant has not placed any document on file which could prove that the insurance policy was transferred in his name.  Moreover, no such document has been placed on the file which could show that the complainant has applied for transfer of insurance policy within 14 days from the transfer of vehicle in his name.  There is nothing on the record to suggest that the consent of previous owner was obtained for transfer of the policy.  Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant.  The law cited in 2014(3) CLT page 345 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jai Bhagwan, decided by Hon’ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts of present case wherein it is held that the petitioner insurance company was well within its right to repudiate the claim on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant.  Thus, the Ops are well within their right to decline the claim of complainant of the present case.    

7.     Hence, as a sequel of above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 27.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.