BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.170 of 2016

Date of Instt. 11.04.2016

Date of Decision: 01.05.2018

Paramjit Singh son of Shri Sarwan Singh r/o VPO Bhar Singh Pura, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Amardeep Building, Opp. Narinder Cinema, 32, G.T. Road, Jalandhar through its Senior Divisional Manager.

2. District Transport Office, Jalandahr.

3. Rajvinder Kaur d/o Surjit Singh r/o Village Khurd, PO Lasara, Distt. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. BP Singh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. AK Arora, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 and 3 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a Car Nissan Micra bearing registration No.PB-32-N-4454 from OP No.3 i.e. Rajvinder Kaur daughter of Surjit Singh ,and the said car was insured with OP No.1 bearing policy No.233100/31/2014/6708 and valid from 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2014. At the time of taking the possession after having paid the entire consideration of the vehicle in question to the OP No.3, it was assured by her that insurance policy of the car in question also stands transferred in the name of the complainant.

2. That on 25.08.2014 at about 11:00 AM, the said car was driven by Ranjit Singh s/o Bakshish Singh r/o Village Sultanpur, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar and when the car reached near village Nagar, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, a bus was going ahead of the car, suddenly the driver of the bus applied the brakes and the car was strucked with the bus. That the car was being driven by its driver on the right side of the road in a normal speed due to the accident, a car was badly damaged. The complainant informed the OP No.1 regarding the accident and got the vehicle repaired from Dada Motors, Giaspura, G.T. Road, Ludhiana and filed the claim with the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.74,146/- and also completed all the required formalities and submitted the relating documents and bills to the OP No.1, and the OP give the assurance to the complainant that the OP No.1 will pay the same to the complainant. OP No.1 instead of paying own damage insurance claim, the bill amount to the complainant issued a letter dated 20.10.2014 mentioning therein that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated due to non availability of the insurable interest at the time of accident. The act and conduct of the OP is highly negligent, against the natural justice and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for repudiating the legal claim of the complainant.

3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the car of the complainant was duly transferred in his name much prior to the accident. The complainant also filed an application under RTI Act with OP No.2 on 06.04.2015 through his counsel for supply of information with regard to the date of filing of the application for transfer of the vehicle i.e. car bearing registration No.PB-32-N-4454 and date of transfer of the registration of the said vehicle, but till date the OP No.2 did not supply the above said information though it was mandatory and obligatory and duty bound to provide information as sought for within 30 days of the receipt of the application. The non adherence tantamounts to deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP No.2. The genuine and bonafide, legitimate and rightful insurance claim disowned by OP No.1 squarely due to non supply of information relatable to transfer of registration in the name of the complainant being registering authority under the law, which is also unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2.

4. That OP No.1 has wrongly and perversely on presumption has repudiated the claim of the complainant against the provisions of law. The ownership of vital is transferred on execution of sale letter and requirements of informing transfer to registering authority is only a post transfer statutory requirement. The complainant has duly informed and applied for transfer of registration to the OP No.2 and the factum of transfer could have been ascertained by the OP No.1 and that the complainant had made application for providing information in respect of the date of applying the transfer of registration. The OP No.1 has not taken into consideration that transfer of policy in the name of the purchaser would only arrived after the transfer of RC is made by the registering authority and for that a period of 14 days is provided for seeking transfer of policy. The complainant has insurable interest and he is entitled to own damage claim. The act and conduct of the OP No.1 for repudiating the genuine and legal claim of the complainant is against the law and the complainant is legally entitled for the genuine claim and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay to the complainant Rs.74,146/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident upto the date of actual payment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 and 3 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP and that being so, the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP and the complainant is not the consumer of the answering OP and that being so that present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question has been issued by the answering OP in favour of Ms. Rajvinder Kaur D/o S. Surjit Singh, for the period 17.10.2013 to midnight of 16.10.2014. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from Rajvinder Kaur and has got the RC of the vehicle transferred in his name on 28.07.2014. The complainant has not got the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name within a period of 15 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in his favour and as such, the complainant has no right whatsoever to file the present complaint against the answering OP. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the answering OP and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the OP has admitted that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Rajvinder Kaur i.e. previous owner and further alleged that the complainant was duty bound to get the insurance transferred in his name after the purchase of car. It is also admitted that on the receipt of the information qua accident of the car, the OP appointed M/s Bansal & Company as a Surveyor to assess the loss and accordingly, who submitted the report and assess the loss to the tune of Rs.48,500/-. The other averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and then evidence of the complainant was closed by order on 08.08.2017.

7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Thapa Ex.OA, Affidavit of Vijay Bansal Ex.OB alongwith documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-6 and then closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9. In nutshell, the claim of the complainant is that he purchased a Car Nissan Micra, bearing registration No.PB-32-N-4454 from Rajvinder Kaur D/o Surjit Singh and the said car was insured with the OP No.1 and insurance policy was valid from 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2014, which stands in the name of previous owner Rajvinder Kaur and at the time of taking the possession, the OP No.3 Rajvinder Kaur previous owner assured the complainant that the insurance policy of the car in question will transfer in the name of the complainant, but unfortunately on 25.08.2014 at 11:00 AM, the car of the complainant met with an accident and car was damaged and accordingly, car was got repaired from Dada Motors, Giaspura, G.T. Road, Ludhiana and thereafter, the complainant filed insurance claim with the OP No.1 for amount of Rs.74,146/-. Apart from that the complainant also submitted all the relevant documents and also fulfilled all required formalities, but OP No.1 without any reason and rhyme, illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 20.10.2014 simply on the ground, as elaborated in the repudiation Ex.C-7 “We are sorry to inform you that the competent authority has been repudiated your above captioned claim due to non availability of Insurable Interest at the time of accident”. In the instant complaint, the above said repudiation letter dated 20.10.2014 is challenged by the complainant being illegal, null and void and sought direction to the OP to pay a compensation.

10. No doubt, the aforesaid brief facts as alleged by the complainant is not denied by the OP rather the OP also admitted that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from Rajvinder Kaur and has got the RC of the vehicle transferred in his name on 28.07.2014. The complainant has not got the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name within the period of 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in his favour and as such, the complainant has no right whatsoever to file the present complaint against the answering OP and further submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the answering OP, vide letter dated 20.10.2014 and copy of the same is produced on the file by the OP as Ex.OP-6. Apart from that the OP has also brought on the file affidavit of the Sandeep Thapa Ex.OA, affidavit of the Surveyor Vijay Bansal Ex.OB, Report of Surveyor Ex.O-3 and Claim Form Ex.O-2.

11. The question require deep intention is only whether the claim of the complainant has been repudiated rightly or wrong. As per version of the OP that the complainant failed to get transfer the insurance policy within a stipulated period as elaborated in the 'Motor Vehicle Act' in Section 157 and Regulation GR-17 and further in support of above version, the OP has made reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, cited in 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 19, titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, (PUS) Gurgaon”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 157, Motor Vehicles Regulation, G.R. 17- liability of insurer, damage to vehicle, accident caused by a vehicle in hands of transferee without the insurance policy being transferred, insurer not liable to compensate the transferee”.

On the same point, the OP has also made reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 1996(1) PLR 202, titled as “M/s Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” and further made reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2016(4) CPJ 382, titled as “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar” and further referred an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2014(4) AICJ 360 and on the basis of aforesaid judgments, the counsel for the OP made much stress to dismiss the complaint being not maintainable.

12. To the contrary, the counsel for the complainant also referred a judgment of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, cited in 2009 ACJ 37, titled as “Ishwar Lal Chaudhary and anothers Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Others” and further referred an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2008(1) CLT 46, titled as “Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited” and in this judgment, it is categorically mentioned that Transfer of vehicle, Automatic transfer of policy, As per Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, circular issued in 1994 with regard to transfer of vehicles and transfer of insurance benefits automatically”.

13. We have considered the facts of the present case as well as ruling referred by the learned counsel for the respective parties and find that in the instant case, the facts of the complaint are not itself clear, the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint on which date, he purchased the vehicle from Rajvinder Kaur and further complainant has failed to describe in the complaint the specific date on which he received registration certificate from the office of DTO, after transfer in the name of the complainant, it is very much necessary to mention the date on which date the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant by the DTO and from that date, the complainant has right to submit an application along with the required document i.e. consent of the previous owner as well as vehicle number and proof of the ownership to the insurance company for transfer of the insurance policy in the name of the complainant. The requirement is to submit aforesaid application along with documents within 14 days as per GR-17 of the Regulation, but the complainant has not brought on the file the aforesaid information, no doubt, the complainant has brought on the file a copy of receipt Ex.C3, whereby deposited the fee for transfer of the vehicle in his name, the said receipt is dated 10 July, 2014, no doubt, we can assume that the complainant has deposited the RC for transfer of the same in his name on 10.07.2014 and further when the same was got back by the complainant from office of DTO, after transfer the vehicle in his name. Obviously, the version of the complainant, he is submitted an application under RTI Act for getting information from the DTO Office, but the information was never supplied. Non supply of information under RTI Act does not fall under the preview of the 'Consumer Protection Act' and moreover, the complainant can disclose the date on which he received the RC from the office of DTO that is sufficient, no other evidence is required, but for the best known reason, the complainant has not proved on the file these factum and even till today, the complainant has not alleged in the complaint or in evidence by way of document that he has ever applied for transfer of the insurance policy in his name within the insured period, if so then, the complainant cannot be considered to be entitled for the insurance claim.

14. So for the ruling is referred by the learned counsel for the complainant are related i.e. the pronouncement of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh, cited in 2009 ACJ 37, is not helpful to the complainant being the facts of the said ruling are not identical to the facts of the case in hand. The other ruling referred by learned counsel for the complainant is 2008(1) CLT 46, titled as “Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited”. Admittedly, in this ruling, the Hon'ble Lordship has categorically hold that as per Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, circular issued in 1994 with regard to transfer of vehicle and transfer of insurance benefit automatically, means the insurance policy will presume to be transferred in the name of the complainant, if he purchased the vehicle, but this ruling is categorically considered elaborately by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a judgment (Supra) 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 19 and in the said judgment, Hon'ble High Court categorically held that the Circular issued in 1994 has been superseded by the New India Motors Tariff Regulation of 2002 and previous GR-10 is replaced by GR-17 deals with the transfer. So, accordingly, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission is not applicable in the case in hand and further the judgments referred by counsel for the OP are apparently fit in the case in hand and accordingly, we reach to the conclusion that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1, whereas the allegation of the complainant against OP No.2 for not supplying the copy of information under RTI Act does not fall under the proviso of 'Consumer Protection Act' and no claim has been asked by the complainant against OP No.3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

15. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

01.05.2018 Member President