Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/25/2024

MEENAKSHI JUNEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM TANDON

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/25/2024
Date of Institution	:	05/01/2024
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2024

 

Meenakshi Juneja wife of Sh. Krishan Juneja, aged about 52 years, resident of H.No.1432, First Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh- 160034.

V E R S U S

… Complainant

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, Plate-A, Office Block -4, NBCC Complex, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi-110023 through its Managing Director/ Director/ General Manager/ Manager/ Authorised Representative
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendara Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017 through its Branch Manager/ Manager/ Authorised Representative.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCF No.75, 2nd Floor, Phase XI, Near Gurudwara Sahib, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager/Manager/Authorised Representative.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Balvinder Singh Ahua, Advocate for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Meenakshi Juneja, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that on 1.11.2022, complainant had purchased a second hand MG Hector 2021 model car from Gagan Deep Singh bearing registration No.CH01-CL-1432 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”), which was already insured with the OPs, vide subject policy (Annexure C-1) w.e.f. 28.9.2022 to 27.9.2023. On 9.11.2022, complainant had applied to the RLA, Chandigarh for transfer of registration certificate of the subject car in her name and the said authority had issued receipt (Annexure C-2), showing the validity upto 28.12.2022. On 5.12.2023, complainant felt breathlessness and was having severe sensation in deep back as a result of which she had taken treatment from Dr. Shalender Singh, The Bliss Hospital, Sector 20, Panchkula from 5.12.2022 to 28.2.2023 and copy of history of treatment and medical reports are Annexure C-3. The registration certificate (Annexure C-4) after transfer of name was received by the complainant on 2.1.2023.  Unfortunately, when the complainant was under treatment of the aforesaid hospital, the subject car, being driven by her husband, had met with an accident on 28.1.2023 and was badly damaged and matter was reported to police, in pursuance to which GD No.9 (Annexure C-5) was recorded by the Police.  OPs were informed about the accident on 28.1.2023 and the husband of the complainant had also requested the OPs for change of insurance policy in the name of the complainant.  However, at that time, OPs had informed the husband of complainant that the insurance policy would not be changed till the subject car is repaired. Thereafter the husband of complainant had taken the subject car to the workshop and had filed claim form (Annexure C-6) with the OPs on 30.1.2023.  On 26.5.2023, repairer had raised repair bill (Annexure C-7) to the tune of ₹5,93,414/- and the same was paid by the husband of the complainant vide receipt (Annexure C-8).  After inspection of the subject car, OPs had changed the name of the owner in the insurance policy certificate (Annexure C-9).  On 1.8.2023, complainant had sent a letter (Annexure C-10) to the OPs regarding delay in getting the insurance policy changed in her name due to her mental health, but, the OPs repudiated her claim vide letter dated 1.9.2023 (Annexure C-11) on totally false grounds.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was insured with the OPs during the relevant period and the insurance policy was issued in the name of Gagan Deep Singh i.e. registered owner.  It is further admitted that on receiving claim intimation form dated 30.1.2023 from the complainant, OPs had immediately swung into action and deputed Jaspreet Singh Mehta, surveyor on 2.2.2023 to assess the loss, who, during survey, found that the subject car was though transferred in the name of complainant, but, the complainant could not get the insurance policy changed in her name and as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurer on the day of accident, insurer was not liable.  It is further alleged that the complainant was required to get the ownership in the policy changed in her name as per General Regulations provision 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff and as the complainant had not intimated the OPs about the transfer of RC in her name nor could get the insurance certificate transferred in her name, OPs are not liable to pay the claim, especially when there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs on the date of accident i.e. on 28.1.2023.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that Gagan Deep Singh was the registered owner of the subject car, which was also got insured by him vide policy (Annexure C-1) valid w.e.f. 28.9.2022 to 27.9.2023 and on 1.11.2022 the subject car was purchased by the complainant from Gagan Deep Singh (erstwhile owner) and she had also applied for its transfer in her name from the RLA, Chandigarh by depositing the requisite transfer fee, as is also evident from Annexure C-2 and the said RC was ultimately transferred in the name of the complainant and the transferred RC was received by the complainant from the authorities on 2.1.2023 and the subject car had met with an accident on 28.1.2023 and even after receiving the transferred RC, complainant did not intimate the OPs about the transfer of RC in her name or apply for the change of policy in her name till 1.8.2023, as is also evident from Annexure C-10, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the insurance policy was not got transferred by the complainant in her name and the same was not in the name of the complainant at the relevant time i.e. at the time of accident and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-4 clearly indicates that the registration certificate of the subject car had already been transferred in the name of the complainant after sale of the same by the erstwhile owner. However, perusal of subject insurance policy (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the same was obtained by its erstwhile owner and was valid w.e.f. 28.9.2022 to 27.9.2023. 
   3. As it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject car had met with an accident on 28.1.2023 and on the said date, the subject policy could not be got transferred either by the seller or by the purchaser/complainant in her name, it is safe to hold that, at the time of accident, the subject policy was remained in the name of the erstwhile owner and the same was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  Not only this, it further stands proved on record that as the complainant could not get the subject policy transferred in her name, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs qua the subject policy.  Moreover, GR-17 of Motor Tariff Rules of Tariff Advisory Committee describes procedure for transfer of policy and relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“GR.17. Transfers

        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………”

4. In support of their case, OPs have relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Enamul Haque, R.P. No.3270 of 2018 decided on 4.9.2019, in which it was held as under :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 157 Theft of vehicle – There was no contract of insurance between the petitioner and the complainant on the date the vehicle was stolen, since the insurance policy had not been transferred in the name of that date – ‘Insurer could not be liable in respect of damage to the vehicle – No claim for third party – Concurrent orders are not sustainable and set aside – Revision dismissed.”

5. OPs have further relied upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mangu Singh, R.P. 2204 of 2013 decided on 7.2.2019 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane and 2 Ors., R.P. No.3896 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2020 on similar proposition of law.
6. It was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 1996 (1) SCC 221 that -

deemed transfer under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to third party risks and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself which falls outside Chapter XI of the new Act and is in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 

7. Thus, one thing is clear from the provisions as laid down in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments/orders passed in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.(supra), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Enamul Haque (supra), Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mangu Singh (supra) and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane and 2 Ors. (supra), that as there was no contract of insurance between the complainant and the insurer/OPs on the date the subject car met with an accident, since the insurance policy admittedly had not been transferred in the name of the complainant on the relevant date i.e. the date of damage, OPs/insurer cannot be held liable in respect of damage to the vehicle, especially when there was no claim for the third party and the own damage is not covered under the policy.  Hence, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to fail.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/09/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member