Haryana

StateCommission

A/337/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UMESH - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP PURI

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.337 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 01.04.2015

and 13.04.2015

Date of Decision: 29.11.2016

 

National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Delhi-Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar, through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Umesh S/o Anand Parkash R/o Village Kheri Khummar, Tehsil and Distt. Jhajjar.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Ajay Dagar, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that  he was registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-14H-8899 and got the same insured from opposite party (O.P.) for Rs. 1,31,011/-. The insurance policy was valid from  02.12.2011 to 01.12.2012.  On 02.09.2012 at about 08.30 PM Geetanshu had gone to the residence of his friend at Delhi and parked the motor cycle in front of his house, but, in the morning the same was found missing and FIR No.282 was lodged at police station (P.S.) Mukharji Nagar north West, Delhi on 05.09.2012.  He submitted claim with O.P., but, the same was repudiated on the ground that vehicle was already sold. Whereas  as per registration certificate (R.C.) he was owner of the same.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.P. that during verification it was found that complainant sold his motor cycle to Jagvir Singh S/o Sh.Bhajan Singh on 5.06.2012 much before the date of occurrence i.e. 02.09.2012. Form No.29 and 30 were also submitted for change of registration. In this way he was not having insurable interest even if insurance policy was in his name.  Objections about jurisdiction, locus standi, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Dipsutes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in Short “District Forum”) accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.02.2015 and directed as under:-

“Therefore, it is directed that the respondent shall make the payment of a sum of Rs.1,31,071/- as insured’s declared value under policy in question which is Ex.P-4/Ex.R-4 along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of alleged theft i.e. 02.09.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled for a  sum of Rs.2810/- paid to the surveyor vide receipt dated 24.07.2013 Ex.P-9 and a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.       Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that   his signatures were obtained on form No.29  Ex.R-7 and Form No.30 Ex.R-8 when they were totally blank. So, on the basis of them it cannot be presumed that the motor cycle was sold to Jagvir Singh.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. Complainant is an educated person and signed the documents in English.  In the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that his signatures were obtained by fraud or force particularly by when he did not allege this fact in his complaint. From the perusal of Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8 it is clear that he sold this vehicle to  Jagvir Singh, much before the date of theft.  Jagvir Singh made statement during investigation that he purchased this vehicle from complainant on 05.0-6.2012. When he had already sold the vehicle he was not having insurable interest in the vehicle.  It is opined by Hon’ble  National Commission in NIC Vs.Ram Prasad Chaudhary 2016 (3) CPR 119 and in revision petition No.2012 of 2007 titled as OIC Vs. M/s Kamal tours & Travels decided on 05.05.2011 that when complainant has sold the vehicle before the incident and the subsequent purchaser has neither got the insurance policy transferred in his name nor gave information to insurance company, then  registered owner cannot ask for compensation.  For ready reference the relevant portion in OIC Vs. M/s Kamal Tours & Travels case (supra) is reproduced below:-

“It is not in dispute that Respondent had got the vehicle insured with the petitioner/Insurance company which was involved in an accident causing loss of the vehicle and which was assessed by the petitioner’s Surveyor at Rs.2.57.455/-. There is, however, credible documentary evidence in the instant case that at the time when the accident took place, insuree had already sold the vehicle to another person.  He also did not inform the petitioner/Insurance company regarding the sale of vehicle nor was the vehicle transferred in the name of the new owner.  As stated by the counsel for petitioner, in a case under similar circumstances, this commission has given a clear ruling that if a vehicle is sold by the insure to another person without intimation to the insurance company then in case of any claim covered under the insurance policy, the insure ceases to have an insurable interest.”

Opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in NIC Vs. Ram Prasad case (supra) discussed in para Nos.6  and 7 is reproduced as under:-

“6. Dealing with this issue, this commission in Revision petition No.1347 of 2008, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimlesh decided on 03.09.2014 inter alia held as under:-

13.    In our view, when the owner of a vehicle sells the said vehicle to another person, and executes a sale letter, without in any manner postponing the passing of title/property in the vehicle, the ownership in the vehicle passes to the purchaser on execution of the sale letter itself.  The delivery of the vehicle only reinforces the title which the purchaser gets to the vehicle on execution of the sale letter in his favour.  As far as transfer of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser in the record of the RTO is concerned.  That is a requirement for the purpose of the Motor Vehicle Act but that does not postpone the transfer of the ownership in the vehicle to the purchaser till the time the vehicle is transferred in his name in the purchaser in the record of the concerned RTO.

7.      It is evident from bare perusal of the recitals made in the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant that the truck in question had actually been sold by him to Shri Rajendra Kumar Yadav on 06.11.2008. Execution of documents such as Form No.28, Form No.29 & Form No.30, which are required for incorporating the transfer of ownership in the record of the concerned Registering Authority, coupled with receipt of Rs.584565/- and an obligation to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.315435/- to HDFC Bank in instalments, leaves no doubt that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by the complainant to Sh.Rajendra Kumar Yadav on the aforesaid date.  Had Sh.Rajendra Kumar Yadav been only appointed as an Attorney, there would be no question of sale consideration of the truck having been fixed at Rs.9 lacs, Sh.Rajendra Kumar Yadav paying Rs.5,84,565/- to the complainant and undertaking to pay the balance agreed sale consideration of Rs.3,15,435/- to the financer, in instalments.  Moreover, in that case, there could be no occasion for the complainant to execute form No.28, Form No.29 & form No.30 in favour of sh.Rajender Kumar Yadav.  Under clause 12 of the Power of Attorney, Mr.Rajender Kumar Yadav was also authorized to make payment to HDFC Bank either from his own income or from the income arising out of the truck.  It is therefore, crystal clear that the truck was to be plied and the income which was to accrue from plying the truck was to go to Sh.Rajendra Kumar Yadav. The complainant had no claim on the truck or on the income earned from it, with effect from 06.11.2008 when the aforesaid Power of Attorney was executed.  It is therefore, evidence that the complainant intended to transfer the property in the truck which is a movable property like any other movable goods. As far as the mutation of ownership in the record of the concerned RTO is concerned,, that being a statutory requirement, it was for Sh.Rajendra Kumar Yadav to get the said record changed in his name in the record of the RTO but as far as ownership in the vehicle is concerned, that stood transferred to him on 06.11.2008 itself.”

In view of the law laid down in above said case law it is clear that when complainant already sold this vehicle he was not having any insurable interest and was not entitled for any compensation.  The learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly granted compensation to complainant. Resultantly impugned order dated  24.02.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

8.       The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

 

November 29th, 2016

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.