Punjab

Sangrur

CC/454/2016

Gurtej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Taranjot Singh Manesh

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  454

                                                Instituted on:    15.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       15.12.2016

 

Gurtej Singh aged 27 years son of Bhag Singh, resident of Rampura Gujara, P.S. Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Calibre Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura, Patiala 140 401 Punjab.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :               Shri T.S.Manesh, Adv.

For Opposite Party   :               Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurtej Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is the owner of Toyata Innova car bearing registration number PB-11-AB-9285 through power of attorney given by Sohan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, VPO Ajrawar, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, who was the registered owner of the vehicle and the said Sohan Singh sold the car in question to the complainant which could not be transferred due to hypothecation of the vehicle with Cholamandalam company. It is further averred that the loan in question was cleared and the finance company issued no due certificate dated  17.6.2015 to the complainant. 

 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 16.10.2013 to 15.10.2014 and the complainant was using the vehicle as a taxi in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.  Further case of the complainant is that on 8.5.2014 the vehicle was in question was snatched from the complainant, as such, the complainant got registered FIR number 50 dated 8.5.2014 at PS Moonak. It is further averred that the statement dated 9.1.2015 was also given by the complainant before  SDJM, Moonak.  It is further averred that after the incident, the complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the required documents for payment of the claim amount of Rs.2,90,000/-, but the grievance of the complainant is that despite all this, the OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- on account of claim of the vehicle in question and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the car in question was insured with the OP for private purpose only, but the vehicle in question on 8.5.2014 was being used as taxi i.e. for commercial purpose, as such no claim is payable as the complainant has breached the mandatory terms and conditions of the policy, that there are complicated questions of law and facts are involved, that the complainant is not a  consumer and  that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle in question was insured on the request of Sohan Singh son of Mohinder Singh for the period from 16.10.2013 to 15.10.2014 for private purpose only for Rs.2,90,000/-.   It is stated further that the complainant is neither the owner of the vehicle nor insured at the time of theft of the vehicle on 8.5.2014 and the OP has no privity of contract with the complainant, as such, he has no insurable interest. It is further stated that according to GR 17, in case of package policies the transfer of ‘own damage’ in favour of the transferee shall be made by the insurer only on the receipt of a specific request along with the consent of the transferor, but there is nothing in the case in hand nor the owner of the vehicle ever intimated the OP regarding theft of the vehicle in question. The Op sent a letter to Sohan Singh for submission of driving license, keys of vehicle, non traceable report, but nothing was submitted by Shri Sohan Singh despite sending the letters. It is further stated that after closing the file of the insured Sohan Singh, he submitted the driving license of his driver Gurtej Singh son of Bhag Singh allegedly issued by District Licensing Authority, Tuensang Nagaland bearing number 49685/TV/T/2013 valid upto 9.11.2017 for LMV etc, but on verification, the same was found fake as the license in question was not issued by the said authority.  As such, it is stated that no claim is payable to the complainant and further any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of report, Ex.C-3 copy of DL, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 copy of report dated 17.6.2015, Ex.C-7 copy of form number 35, Ex.C-8 copy of statement dated 9.1.2015, Ex.C-9 copy of order dated 9.1.2015, Ex.C-10 copy of special power of attorney and Ex.C-11 copy of RC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 copy of intimation, Ex.OP-4 copy of FIR, Ex.OP-5 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-11 copies of letters, Ex.OP-12 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.OP-13 copy of DL, Ex.OP-14 to Ex.OP-16 copies of letters and postal receipts and Ex.OP-17 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             At the outset, in the first line of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he is the owner of Toyota Innova car in question through power of attorney given by Sohan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, who was the registered owner of the above said vehicle. The complainant has further stated that the vehicle in question was insured with the Op which was stolen/snatched on 8.5.2014 while he was plying the same as a taxi.  The complainant has further contended that though he lodged the claim with the OP for payment on account of cost of the vehicle, but the OP did not settle the claim.  On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the vehicle in question was insured for private use only in the name of Sohan Singh son of  Mohinder Singh, resident of VPO Ajrawar, Distt. Patiala for the period from 16.10.2013 to 15.10.2014, but the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle nor the complainant has hired the services of the OP by paying any consideration nor he ever intimated the OP that he had purchased the vehicle in question nor he got transferred the vehicle and insurance policy in his name.  As such, it is contended that the complainant has no insurable interest nor he is a consumer of the OP in view of section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents produced on the file, we find that first of all it is required to be decided whether the complaint is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer of the OPs or not.

 

8.             It is the own case of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question from Sohan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, but the same had not been got transferred nor the insurance had been transferred in the name of the complainant at the time of theft of the vehicle on 8.5.2014, as such we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that how his complaint is maintainable and how he is a consumer of the OP, more so when he has paid no consideration to the Op for availing the services like insurance premium. We have also perused the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-4 (Ex.OP-1) and its perusal shows that the same is insured as a private car in the name of Sohan Singh and similarly Ex.C-11 is the copy of registration of the vehicle which also shows that the same is in the name of Sohan Singh son of Mohinder Singh, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at all nor he is proved to be the consumer of the OP.  Further to support his contention, the learned counsel for the Op has cited ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited versus Yogesh Yadav IV(2016) CPJ 54 (NC), wherein it has been held that the complainant ought to have applied to the company for transfer of registration in his name within 14 days from the date of he purchase the vehicle, if that having not been, then it has been held that there is no privity of contract between him and insurance company, on the date of the vehicle got burnt and the repudiation of the claim was held to be justified.   Similarly, the learned counsel for the Op has further cited Darab Singh and another versus National Insurance Company Limited II (2013) CPJ 412 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that if the registration certificate of the vehicle and insurance has not been transferred, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. 

 

9.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Niharika Maurya versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 2011(2) CPC 420(NC), wherein it has been held that the insured car was snatched by miscreants from the driver at a gun point and the Op company settled the claim on non standard basis as full and final settlement. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to pay the balance amount with interest, but the Hon’ble State Commission reversed the order with the observation that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and in the revision, it was held that the impugned order is not sustainable as fact of commercial purpose was not proved. But, we feel that the above citation is not at all applicable in the present case, as in the case in hand, the complainant has even failed to prove to be the consumer of the Op by paying any consideration for availing the services of the OP.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record  that he availed any services from the OP, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves dismissal on this score also.

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 15, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                  

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member