IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das, Smti S.Bora
Member, Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.01/2018
1.Sri Suresh Borah : Complainant
S/o Sri Tankeswar Borah
Resident of vill:Borgaon
P.O :Borgaon
Distt:Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. : Opp.party
Represented by Br. Manager
Divisional Office, Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur,(Assam)-784001
2.Sri Ananda Mohan Sarmah : Proforma Opp. party
S/o Late Patidev Sarmah, Ward No.3,Rangapara
P.O & P.S Rangapara
Distt: Sonitpur, Assam
Appearance:
Sri Janmoni Borah : For the Complainant
Sri Sudesh Kr Singh : For the Opp. Party
Date of argument : 21-08-18
Date of Judgment : 17-09-18
J U D G M E N T
- The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that complainant purchased the Bolero Pick Up vehicle bearing registration No.AS-12-E-5325 from one Ananda Mohan Sarmah (Proforma Opp. party) in the year 2013 and on 17-10-2014 got the Registration Certificate of the vehicle transferred to his name.It is alleged that pending transfer of the insurance, the vehicle went missingon 16-01-2014 that corresponds to Thelamara Police Station Case No.2/2014. Police finally submitted Final report in the case and complainant, on approaching the opp.party insurance company, to lodge claim for total loss, the same was turned down by the opposite party. Hence, the instant complaint before the Forum praying a total of Rs.4,32,000/- that allegedly includes Rs.3,87,000/-as the Insured value of the vehicle.
- Opposite party contested the case by filing written version contending that the complainant approached the opposite party for the first time with claim of theft of the vehicle on 29/07/16. There was no explanation from the complainant either for the undue delay in intimation or for non-transfer of the Policy from its earlier owner. As such the complainant had no insurable interest. Claiming the repudiation to be on the right footing, opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
- Complainant tendered his evidence in chief on affidavit exhibiting few documents as exhibits thereunder. Opposite party declined to adduce evidence of any witness and preferred to remain content by cross-examining the complainant.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the written arguments filed on both sides and draw the following points for determination of the case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
i)Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim ?
ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
- The claim of the complainant has been resisted by the opposite party on two counts:
(a)Firstly, according to the opposite party neither the complainant nor the proforma opposite party from whom the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant made any intimation to the insurer about the incident of theft. According to the opposite party, under the terms and conditions of the Policy, the insured in case of theft, was obliged to make written intimation to the insurer about the incident of theft immediately after the incident. The complainant on 29-07-2016 for the first time approached the insurer and lodged claim with intimation of theft without assigning any reason for delay in intimation
(b)Secondly, since the complainant failed to transfer the Policy in his name by paying requisite fees, so he having no insurable interest is not a consumer and thus, the Insurance Company has no responsibility to make any compensation under the Policy.
- Advancing argument for the complainant in the matter of right of the complainant under the Policy in the name of previous owner of the vehicle, learned advocate Sri Janmoni Borah, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs. Smti Sheela Rani reported in (1999(1)TAC 322(SC) submitted that in absence of proper intimation about the transfer by the transferor in the prescribed form, the Policy will not lapse and thus the Insurer cannot escape from its liability.
- Refuting such contention, learned advocate Sri S.K.Singh for the opposite party Insurance Company submits that a transferee is to get the policy transferred within 14 days of transfer of Certificate of Registration. In the instant case, the complainant got the certificate of registration transferred in his name on 17/10/2013. But he did nothing for transfer of Insurance Policy of the vehicle. The policy does not get automatically transferred in the name of the purchaser unless the same is applied and transfer fee is paid. The complainant having no contract with the Insurance Company is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Since he had no insurable interest, so the claim is not maintainable. Further, the complainant only on 29/07/2016 intimated the Insurance Company about the theft without giving any explanation for the delay. Learned advocate Mr. Singh placing the following two judgments of Hon’ble National Commission submits that delay in intimating about theft is a valid ground for repudiation of a claim.
Judgments relied on are –
- Shri Kuldeep Singh vs IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd, reported in 2013 NCJ 104 (NC).
- Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Mahendar Jat reported in 2015(1)CPR 145 (NC)
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the judgments placed by the learned counsel.
- A scrupulous reading of Sheela Rani’s case relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the ratio of the judgment of Sheela Rani, instead of supporting the complainant, supports the opposite party. While passing the judgment in Sheela Rani’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the judgment passed by it earlier in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 221.
- We have also gone through the judgment passed in the case of Complete Insulations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Madinani Kondaiah & Ors etc vs. Yaseen Fatima & Ors etc (AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 62) and also discussed various provisions including Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts of Kondaiah’s case is similar to the case in hand. In the said case, the vehicle in question was transferred, but not the Insurance Policy. The Policy or the Certificate was not transferred to the vendee.
- Section 157 lays down that when the owner of the vehicle, in relation whereto, a certificate of Insurance is issued, transfers to another person the ownership of the vehicle, the Certificate of Insurance together with the Policy described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the new owner of the vehicle with effect from the date of transfer.
- Sub-Section (2) requires the transferee to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in the Certificate of Insurance and the Policy described therein in his favour.
- In the case of Complete Insulations, the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the Appellant and the appellant intimated the fact of the transfer of registration and asked for transfer of the Insurance Policy. Reminder was also issued but the Insurance Company did not respond. In the meantime, the vehicle met with an accident in which the Managing Director of the appellant suffered serious injuries and his sister died. The vehicle got damaged to a total loss. When approached for assessment of the damage the appellant got a notice from the Insurance Company that he had no insurable interest. The appellant filed complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh which directed the Insurance Company to pay the insured value of the vehicle along with cost and interest. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, set aside the order and dismissed the complaint.
- Complainant Sri Suresh Borah in the instant case, during cross-examination admitted that he had not taken any step to transfer the Policy in his name. The vehicle was admittedly stolen after three months of the transfer of Certificate of Registration. In the complaint also at para 5 complainant stated “that after getting the order of Transfer the vehicle being Registration No.AS-12-E-5235 in the name of the complainant, the complainant was about to transfer the insurance policy being No.1307003113P100833980 of the vehicle being Registration No.AS-12-E-5235 in his name, but in the mean time on 16-01-2014 the above mentioned vehicle was lost from Thelamara and in this connection the complainant lodged an F.I.R before the Officer-in-Charge of Thelamara Police Station which is registered as Thelamara P.S Case No.2/2014 ( Corresponding to G.R Case No.123/14)”.
Under the above facts, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations, referred to above, we hold that the complainant being not a party to any contract with the Insurance Company is not entitled to claim any benefit from the Insurance Company under the Policy for loss of his vehicle.
For the reasons stated above, both the Points under discussion are answered in the negative.
O R D E R
In the result, complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 17th day of Sept, 2018.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (SRI P. DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
