DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1153 of 2009 Date of Inst: 13.08.2009 Date of Decision:04.05.2010 Shiva Anchal r/o H.No.2418, Mandi Extension, Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi. ---Complainant V E R S U S1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office 24 Whltes Road, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 836, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Kalka Highway, Manimajra.---Opposite Parties3. M/s Everest Press through its Proprietor /Partner/Authorized Signatory, R/o E-49/8, Okhla Indl. Area,, Phase-1, New Delhi.---Per forma Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Abhijeet Tanjea, Adv. for complainant Sh.G.D.Gupta, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2 OP-3 exparte --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Shiva Anchal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay the sum assured of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 18% from 10.12.2007 till its realization. ii) Refund a sum of Rs.3170/- along with interest paid to the investigator. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as punitive damages. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. v) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a car (Maruti Esteem) bearing registration No.DL-8C-F-1754 from OP-3 on 17.07.2009. The complainant got the same insured from OPs No.1 and 2 for insured declared value of Rs.90,000/- against a premium of Rs.2043/-. The insurance was valid from 20.03.2007 to 19.03.2008. The said vehicle was stolen on 30.11.2007 from New Colony, Gurgaon. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure C-3) with police station of Gurgaon to this effect. According to the complainant, he informed OPs No.1 and 2 regarding the theft of the vehicle vide letter dated 10.12.2007. It has further been pleaded that after 5 months OPs No.1 and 2 appointed its surveyor to investigate the claim and the complainant paid Rs.3170/- as professional fee to the said investigator. According to the complainant, he submitted all the relevant documents to the OPs No.1 and 2 for processing the claim. The complainant received a letter dated 09.09.2008 whereby his claim has been repudiated on the ground that he has no insurable interest. According to the complainant, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP, it has not been denied that the vehicle in question was insured for sum assured of Rs.90000/- against the premium of Rs.2043/-. It has not been denied that the vehicle in question was stolen. It has been pleaded that on the date of theft, the vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Everest Press and therefore, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was not payable in view of provisions of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and GR-17 of the Motor Tariff. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was required to give written intimation immediately on date of occurrence of any accidental loss or damage but the complainant has failed to do so. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP-3 was duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.09.2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Annexure C-1/A is the affidavit executed by Sh.Rajiv Baga who is partner of M/s Everest Press (OP-3) wherein he has deposed that the car in question was sold to the complainant after receiving the full and final payment on 17.03.2007. It has further been deposed in the affidavit that the possession of the car was handed over to the complainant on that day. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the receipt acknowledging the payment of Rs.1 lac being the full and final sale consideration of the said car. Annexure c-4 is the insurance policy whereby the said car was got insured by the complainant himself from OP covering the risk of theft. The said policy was valid from 20.03.2007 to 19.03.2008. The car was stolen on 30.11.2007 as is evident from the copy of the F.I.R. (Annexure C-3). Thus, the car was stolen during the subsistence of the said insurance policy. 7. The claim made by the complainant has been repudiated on the following grounds as is evident from the letter issued by OPs to the complainant:- “On scrutiny, it is observed that the vehicle had been sold to you by Everest Press r/o E-49/8, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi on dated 17.03.2007. After the sale, neither the application had been made by either of the parties for the changer of the registration for ownership to the Registration Authority. It is the contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act. On dated 19.03.07, yourself had mentioned in the proposal form, Mr.Shiva anchal r/o @ 2418, Mandi Extension, Bawana Road, Narela Delhi as the owner of the above said vehicle. Accordingly, the insurance policy was issued in the name of Mr.Shiva Anchal at yr request. But on the date of theft, according to the registration certificate the vehicle still stands in the name of Everest Press, therefore, you had no insurable interest in the vehicle.” To our mind, the rejection of the claim of the complainant is unjustified and illegal. The cover note was issued by OPs after satisfying itself that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question. Mere fact that the complainant has not been registered as owner by the Registering Authority does not make the policy invalid. The provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are independent provisions and the failure of a person to get the vehicle registered in his name on purchase from original owner is not relevant to the insurable interest. The privity of contract regarding the insurance of the car is in between the complainant and OPs as is evident from the insurance policy (Annexure C-2). Our view stands fortified by the ratio of case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Gupta reported in III(2006)CPJ-4 in which the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission has held as under:- “11. In the same vein we also find that the onus which the Counsel for the appellant is harping upon is of the same nature upon the appellant also that before issuing insurance policy and the insurance cover note it should have satisfied the status of the insured-respondent whether he is the actual owner of the vehicle or not. The very fact of issuing insurance cover note by the Insurance Company shows that the Insurance Company itself was satisfied as to the ownership of the respondent and issued the policy on the premise that transfer of registration certificate in the name of respondent was mere an official formality”. Ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. So the repudiation of the claim is illegal and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. 8. Section of 157 (2)of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- “157. Transfer of certificate of Insurance.— (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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 regards to the transfer of insurance”. As per the provisions of section 157(2), it is applicable where the car was got insured by the previous owner and the said policy is to be got transferred in the name of the person who purchased the same. Therefore, Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is not applicable in the present case. In the case in hand, the complainant himself got the car insured claiming himself to be the owner of the car. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs No.1 to 2 to pay Rs.90,000/- being the insured declared value of the vehicle in question to the complainant along with a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OPs No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to refund Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.08.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 04.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
