DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.144/2013

PARSHURAM SHAH

S/o Sh. Mahesh Shah

R/o 558, Banger & Churia Mohalla

Madanpur Khadar,

New Delhi.

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 M/s The  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

D/-80, Malviya Nagar,

Main Road, Lower Upper Ground

New Delhi-110017.

(Policy Insured Branch)

M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hansalaya Building

15, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi.

(Claim Released Branch)

        ….Opposite Parties

            Date of Institution    :    25.03.2013    

            Date of Order            :    11.05.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

1.       Complainant has requested to pass an  award to pay the claim amount of Rs. 43,000/- with interest @18% from the date of accident till its realization; to pay other miscellaneous expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-; and to pay a sum of RS.20,000/- (Rs.15,000+Rs.5,000) as cost of legal notice & legal expenses etc.

2.       The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant was registered owner of the motor-cycle bearing No.DL-3SBS-0480 and said vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) vide policy NO.215201/31/2013/792 for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30.04.2013 for all purposes by Mohd. Talib, R/o K-129, Abdul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar who was owner of the said vehicle before. It was transferred to the Complainant. The said vehicle met accident with trawler/truck. The said vehicle was damaged completely. At the time of accident, his son, Ravi with valid driving licence, was driving the vehicle. To this effect, an F.I.R NO.204/12 u/s 279 at Sarita Vihar Police Station was lodged. The Complainant approached the OP for releasing the claim amount through Md. Talib, the first insured person.

3.       The OP refused to release the claim on the ground that the said vehicle had been transferred to the another person. The same is exhibited at Annexure-D. In such circumstances, the Complainant got the legal Notice issued to the OP. Reply thereto from OP was also received. The same is exhibited at Annexure- F.

4.       On the other hand, the OP took some preliminary objection stating that the said vehicle was transferred from one Md. Talib on 09.05.2012, whereas the above-mentioned policy continued to be in the name of the seller/transferor. It was exhibited by the OP that the request for transfer of certificate of insurance should reach to the insurer within 14 days alongwith the consent of transferor as per the Indian Motor Tariff. The insurance policy for the said vehicle had not yet been transferred. As such, the Complainant had violated the provision of GR-17 of the Transfer of Package Policy. The transfer of the said policy could have been accepted only if the evidence of sale alongwith  and duly filled in policy form and signed by the transferee is accepted by the insurer and old policy certificate has to be surrendered  and fees is also to be deposited. The OP further stated that these provisions Part II are in accordance with Insurance Act. As such, these have statutory force. The terms & Conditions of the policy are annexed as Annexure R/A   OP further stated that in view of above, the claim was repudiated. The same is exhibited at Annexure R/B. Further, it was averred by the OP that there is no privity of contract between the OP and Complainant. It has been held in by the Supreme Court in M/s Complete Insulations (p) Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd-1996 SCC(1) 121 and in New India vs Divya Prashad 2011(1) CPJ 22 National Commission,  and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamal Tours and Travels RP No. 2012/2007 decided on 05.05.2011 and United India Vs Gloi Sridhar RP No.2964 decided on 22.11.2011 by the National Commission in a catena of judgments that the moot question involved in the case was whether on the facts of the case, without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the transferee, he was entitled to be indemnified by the insurer and it was held that the insurer is not liable to pay the claim if the policy continues to be in the name of  seller/transferor and vehicle stands transferred in the name of transferee. The said judgement of Supreme Court is exhibited at Annexure R/C.

5.       Both the parties have filed evidence in affidavit and Written Submission. Rejoinder is on record so is the Written Statement. Arguments were heard and concluded.

6.       This Commission has gone into the material placed on record. It was noticed that the OP has systematically led the evidence and proved that the above-mentioned policy should have been transferred and new policy should have been obtained as per provision of GR-17 of the Insurance Act, 1938. No Substantive evidence was advanced by the Complainant whereas the evidences so placed by the OP have statutory force. The OP also relied upon the ratios of judgments mentioned above. This Commission is completely in agreement with the ratios-decidendi of the above mentioned judgments.

7.       In view of facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, this Commission is of considered opinion that the OP has not been found deficient in service and negligence. Therefore, the claim of the Complainant is rejected and found devoid of merit.

No cost as to order

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.