Delhi

North East

CC/94/2021

Akshay Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 94/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Akshay Chaudhary S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar, R/o House No. 5/452, Mohalla Maharam, Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.               2.	The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Service Centre(DRO-2) 4E/14, Jhandewalan Extn.,  Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055   Head Office at:- Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002   Atul Tyagi, (Branch Incharge) C-93, Keshav Chowk, Opp. Welcome Metro Station, Block-D, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		30.07.2021 19.05.2023 04.07.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant  had purchased a bike Model RC 390 KTM, bearing no. DL 5SCN 5493, Chassis No. MD2JYJXGDLC257873, Engine No. L-938*33565* on  21 December 2020  from  Shivam Sharma through wheelcart showroom owned by Rajiv Bajaj and on the same day, process of the Registration Certificate transfer was initiated. The said vehicle was duly transferred in the name of the Complainant on 16.02.2021 and Registration Certificate was dispatched to the Complainant on 17.02.2021 as corroborated by the tracking Id: ED694406817 and received by the Complainant on 22.02.2021 through speed post. It is stated that the bike in question was already insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide certificate cum policy no. 271702/31/2021/7095 for a period from 06.11.2020 to 05.11.2025. It is further stated that the above bike was stolen on 20.02.2021 at 5:00 pm from outside fab India Ghaziabad, UP. The Complainant made the PCR call on the same day and also lodged the FIR no. 252/2021 dated 21.02.2021 in that regards. The Complainant also informed the Opposite Party within 24 hours of the incident. However, to his utter shock, the Opposite Party sent a letter rejecting the claim of the Complainant and  gave opportunity to substantiate the claim within 15 days before the final decision. The Complainant submitted all the necessary documents and representation but vide their letter dated 16.03.2021, the Opposite Party  repudiated the  claim of above mentioned stolen bike on the ground:

“As per the letter and the Registration Certificate, the vehicle has been in the name of Sh. Akshay Chaudhary S/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar at the time of theft (as per RTO records) however, the policy holder of the vehicle is Sh. Shivam Sharma S/o Sh. Brij Nandan Sharma, therefore, insurable interest in the said vehicle does not arise.”

2. The Complainant had also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party which was duly served but they did not bother even to reply the said notice. It is alleged that the Opposite Party has been liable of deficiency in services by rejecting wrongfully the valid claim of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed the present complaint praying for claim amount of Rs. 2,40,711/- alongwith interest @ 12%.p.a. and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and further the litigation fees.  
3. Notices were served on both the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.1 entered appearance and filed their reply. Opposite Party No.2 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order 28.11.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

4. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. While admitting the policy, it is contended by the Opposite Party No.1 that as per the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, the vehicle was in the name of Akshay Chaudhary at the time of theft while the Policy holder of the vehicle is Shivam Sharma, therefore, insurable interest does not arise. Since the claim was not maintainable, hence it was repudiated. It is also contended that the Complainant purchased the vehicle in question and Registration Certificate was also transferred but no intimation was given to the Opposite Party company regarding transfer of ownership. Insured and the owner of the vehicle are different persons, hence, claim was denied. It is submitted that the Complainant had concealed material facts and filed frivolous complaint, hence, liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Ms. Renuka Chaudhary, Deputy Manager of Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have also perused the file including the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and heard the counsels of Complainant and the Opposite Party.
9. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased the subject bike from one Shivam Sharma and immediately applied for the Registration Certificate also. Since, the said bike got stolen, the Complainant immediately informed the police as well as the Opposite Party. It is stated that the vehicle was duly transferred in his name on the date of incident and the said vehicle was also insured. It is alleged that in spite of valid policy, the Opposite Party had wrongly rejected his valid claim for the said vehicle on the ground that the  Complainant did not have an insurable interest as the policy was in the name of previous owner on the date of incident. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has contended that at the time of theft, the Policy holder of the vehicle was Shivam Sharma while per the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, the vehicle was in the name of Akshay Chaudhary, therefore, insurable interest did not arise. It is also contended that the Complainant purchased the vehicle in question and Registration Certificate was also transferred but no intimation was given to the Opposite Party company regarding transfer of ownership. Insured and the owner of the vehicle are different persons, hence, claim was repudiated.
10. The perusal of the record reveals that there is no dispute as to the validity of the Policy and the same has been admitted by the Opposite Party. It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was duly transferred in the name of the Complainant before the incident. The contention of the Opposite Party is that no intimation was given to the Opposite Party Company regarding transfer of ownership and the policy of the vehicle in question was continuing in the name of the Shivam Sharma, the previous owner. Since, at the time of theft, the Complainant/claimant had not insurable interest hence, the claim was not payable.
11. In support of his case, ld. counsel for the Complainant has relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 22 May,2007 in the revision petition no. 556 of 2002 Narayan Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. wherein it was held;

“In this view of the matter, 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 Vehicle Act transfer application is to be made within a period of 14 days and those 14 days were not over in the present case. Hence, in our view, it is highly improper and unjustified act on the part of the Insurance company to reject the claim on such ground and harass the Complainant for years together.”

12. In this context, Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 may be reproduced as below:-

“Transfer of certificate of insurance.—

1.  Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 1[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.]
2.  The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.”

13. Coming to the present set of facts, it is established that said vehicle was duly transferred in the name of the Complainant on 16.02.2021 and Registration Certificate was dispatched to the Complainant on 17.02.2021 as corroborated by the tracking report filed by the Complainant. The vehicle was stolen on 21.02.2021 and since the transfer application is to be made within a period of  14 days from the date of transfer, the period of 14 days was not over in present case. The genuineness of the incident has also not been in question as the same is corroborated by the FIR and Final report.
14.  In view of above discussion and the case law, we are of the considered opinion, the Opposite Party has been deficient in services while rejecting the valid claim of the Complainant.
15. Thus, we hold that Opposite Party insurance company is guilty of deficiency of services, and direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,40,711/- (Rs. Two lakhs, Forty Thousand and Seven Hundred Eleven only), the insured amount under the policy along with 6 % interest from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with 6 % interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
16. Order announced on 04.07.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President