Haryana

Karnal

341/2013

Sher Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limted - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A.S. Virk

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No. No.341 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 1.08.2013

                                                          Date of decision:  18.03.2016

 

Sher Singh son of Shri Mahaveer Singh resident of Janak puri Gali No.2, Gaushala Road, Karnal.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant. .

                                      Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, near bus stand, Karnal through its Senior Divisional Manager.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh Ajayant Singh Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party

ORDER:                

 

                        This complaint   has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act - 1986,  on the averments that he got his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05T-6562 insured with the Opposite Party  vide cover note No.304951  which was valid from 14.2.2012 to 13.2.2013. The said motor cycle was stolen while lying parked outside house no.246/7,Urban Estate, Karnal. He made efforts to search the motor cycle but the same could not be traced. Then, he  got lodged First Information Report No.354 dated 17.5.2012 in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. Intimation was also given to the Opposite Party.  Thereafter, owner’s damage  claim was lodged with the Opposite Party and all the required documents were submitted However, the Opposite Party did not settle his claim. Ultimately, he got served legal notice dated 15.6.2013 but the same also did not yield any result and evasive reply was sent by the Opposite Party on 2.7.2013. The said act on the part of the Opposite Party  amounted to deficiency in services, which caused him mental agony and hardship apart from financial loss.

 

2.       Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not  maintainable; that the complainant is not consumer of the Opposite Party; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

          On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant purchased motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05T-6562 from registered owner  Sh.Rakesh Gupta son of Ishwar Dass.  However, no intimation regarding the  said transfer was given to the Opposite Party either by the complainant or by Rakesh Gupta. The registration record of the vehicle continued in the name of Rakesh Gupta.  As per provisions of section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,  the complainant was duty bound to apply to the Opposite Party within 14 days of the transfer, for making changes regarding transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy, but the complainant failed to comply with the said statutory requirement. Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question, therefore, he was not entitled to get any compensation from the Opposite Party and his claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 2.7.2013.  The factum of receiving notice has been admitted, but it has been submitted that the said notice was sent by Ajayant Singh Virk, Advocate on behalf of Rakesh Gupta  and not on behalf of the complainant. It has been asserted that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Shri R.S.Bahlan, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O1  and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O10 have  been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.       

 

6.                 It is admitted  fact that Rakesh Gupta was registered owner of the motor   cycle bearing registration No. HR-05T-6562.  As per the case of the complainant, the said motor cycle was purchased by him from Rakesh Gupta and the same was stolen on 17.5.2012 regarding which First Information Report No.354 dated 17.5.2012 was got registered in Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The  motor cycle was already  got insured by Rakesh Gupta with the Opposite Party for the period of 14.2.2012 to 13.2.2013. The complainant lodged claim regarding the theft of the motor cycle,  but the same was repudiated on the ground that  he had no insurable interest.

 

7.                 Thus, the matter into controversy boils down into a narrow compass and the main question which falls for consideration is whether the complainant had any insurable interest in the motor cycle on the date of  theft of the same. Admittedly, the complainant did not get transferred the registration certificate of the motor cycle in question after purchasing the same from Rakesh Gupta. Thus, Rakesh Gupta continued to be registered owner of the motor cycle even upto the date of  theft of the same.

 

8.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Party put a great thrust upon the contention that the complainant was neither registered owner nor he got the insurance policy transferred in his name as per provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, he had no  insurable interest in the vehicle and there was no privity of contract between him and the Opposite Party and as such his claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party.  In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on N.Gopal Versus Branch Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd.  2015(I) CLT 67, wherein the petitioner/complainant had purchased the car from registered owner, which was already got insured by the registered owner. During the period of insurance, the car met with an accident on 25.1.2008 and as a result of the said  accident, the same was damaged. The complainant/petitioner had informed the transport officer to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to his name by producing all documents and authority concerned had transferred the same into his name on 28.4.2008. The complainant/ petitioner lodged the claim, but the same was repudiated by the insurance company.  Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that at the time of accident, neither the complainant/petitioner was registered owner of the vehicle nor the insurance policy had been transferred in his name, therefore, he had no insurable interest  and there was no  relationship  between the insured and insurer. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner/complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

 

9.                 To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had purchased the motor cycle from Rakesh Gupta and thus became owner thereof. Mere fact that registration certificate was not got transferred in his name and intimation regarding transfer was not given to the Opposite Party could not be ground to repudiate his claim, because the Opposite Party insured the vehicle and not the person. The complainant, who became owner of the vehicle had insurable interest , therefore, entitled to get claim from the Opposite Party.

 

10.               The  proposition of law laid down by the  Hon’ble National Commission in N.Gopal’s case (Supra)  squarely covers  the facts of the present case, because the complainant neither got transferred the vehicle to his name  in the registration certificate nor gave intimation to the Opposite Party. The previous owner i.e. Rakesh Gupta continued to be  registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance certificate  also continued  in his name till the date of theft of the vehicle. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company on the day of theft of the vehicle. Thus, he had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Under such facts and circumstances, the order of the Opposite Party repudiating the claim of the complainant cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.

 

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint.  Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:17.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh Ajayant Singh Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 18.3.2016..

 

dated:17.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:-        Sh Ajayant Singh Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                    Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

dated:18.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.