DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA 

                                                           RBT/Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2018

                                                            Date of institution: 19.01.2018

                                                            Date of Decision: 19.05.2022

Sub. Major Bhagwant Singh, son of Malkiat Singh, resident of Maksudra, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana 

….Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office 24, White House, Chennai-600014 through authorized signatory
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136, Ferozepur Road, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, 141001 through authorized signatory
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ahmedgarh Mandi through authorized signatory  

                                                                             ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

Quorum:      Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                              Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

Present:        Sh. M.S. Sethi, Adv. For complainant

Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate. For Ops

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased second hand maruti Swift Car Model 2011 bearing Registration No.PB10DK3344 from Swatantar Sood on consideration of Rs.3,65,000/- and physical possession of the car was taken from seller on 12.6.2017 by the complainant along with transfer documents and insurance coverage. At the time of receiving of possession of the car on 12.6.2017 said car was already insured for the period from 18.6.2016 to 17.06.2017 with United India Insurance Company, Ludhiana and before expiry of policy period, the complainant approached the Ops for issue of policy in his name for the further one year but OP refused to do so without firstly getting transfer of RC of the car in  its name and OP advised the  complainant to get transfer of said car in its name and thereafter along with submitting copy of RC duly transfer in his name. However. Previous policy was got renewed in the name of previous owner but address of the complainant is duly given which was accepted by the OP without any objections etc for the period from 18.6.2017 to 17.6.2018 on receiving yearly premium of Rs.7128/- on 16.6.2017 from the complainant, the said policy was renewed in the name of previous owner but address of the complainant is duly given which was accepted by the OP without any objection etc.  OP issued the certificate of insurance bearing policy No.2006023117P104183235 dated 16.6.2017 for the period from 18.6.2017 to 17.6.2018. It is further alleged that thereafter immediately the complainant applied with Licensing Authority Ludhiana for change of name in Registration Certificate of the said car. As per the knowledge of the complainant, his name was duly recorded in RC on 28.6.2017 and after change of name said RC was received by the complainant from Licensing Authority Ludhiana on 30.06.2017. Before getting transfer of name in insurance policy, the car in question met with an accident near village Lehra, District Ludhiana on 3.7.2017. Complainant duly reported the matter to concerned police station, Delhon, Ludhiana and DDR No.24 dated 3.7.2017 was issued by the police station, Dehlon, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with Ops and also incurred repair expenses of Rs.59,722/- and other petty expenses but OP vide its letter dated 30.11.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the Ops to pay the repair expenses of Rs.59,722/- and other petty expenses of Rs.4000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss till realization.
2.  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant in the interest of justice.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2. Upon notice, the O.Ps. has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. On merits, it is stated that the policy stands in the name of Swatantar Sood, but the RC stands in the name of Sub. Major Bhagwant Singh so there is no insurable interest exists in this policy in favour of the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Ops. After receipt of the intimation of damage of the vehicle, the opposite parties immediately deputed Er. Rakesh Mehtra, Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss of the claim lodged by the complainant. The surveyor submitted his detailed report with the insurance company. As per the report of the surveyor and terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was entitled to Rs.21,300/- after deducting the excess clause as well as after deducting the salve value of Rs.403/-. Further on going through the documents of claim, it has been observed that at the time of accident, the policy stands in the name of Swatantar Sood but RC in the name of complainant, so there is no insurable interest exists in this policy at the time of accident.  Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied by the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.  The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.  
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
5. In this present case, the main controversy is that whether the complainant is having insurable interest or not?.
6. After going through the documents and pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the complainant had to apply for the transfer of insurance in his name within fourteen days from the purchase of vehicle, which is contrary to the provisions of the section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In fact,  Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act is in two parts, which are reproduced as under:-
7. 157. Transfer of Certificate of Insurance (1)

So as per the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, it is evident that if an insured owner of the vehicle transfers the ownership of the vehicle to another person insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall automatically get transferred to the transferee of the motor vehicle.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case RP/1224/2012 in order para No.7,8 & 9 in reference of provision of Section 157 of Motor Vehcile Act also held that clause 2 of Section 157, however, puts a rider and casts an obligation on the transferee to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of vehicle to the insurer for necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the insurance policy. No doubt in the instant case, no application of transfer of insurance policy under Section 157 (2) of the motor vehicle Act was made. However, from the record, it is evident that accident took place on the date on which the ownership of the vehicle was transferred. The period of 14 days for applying transfer of insurance policy had not lapsed.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil appeal 1391 of 2009 under para 13 held that “The counsel for the insurance company of course contended that as per their record, on the date of accident, the vehicle was registered in the name of Gangadhara. Hence, in the absence of valid proof that the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred in the name of Jeeva Ratna Setty, However, the said contention is contrary to record. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in para 14 held in view of above findings, it can be discerned that on the date of accident, the ownership of the tractor stood transferred from Gagandhara to Jeeva Ratna Reddy. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in para No.15 held that they are of the considered view that as on the date of accident, the deceased workman was in the course of employment of Jeeva Ratna Reddy in whose name of the ownership of the vehicle stood transferred and the said vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy
10. So, in the case in hand, where Registration Certificate has been transferred in the name of the complainant and accident happened after transfer of RC in the name of the complainant as such according to provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the complainant is entitled for insurance claim.

1. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed with the directions to the Ops to pay the repair charges to the tune of Rs.59,772/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of loss till realization. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. The O.Ps. are also directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

May 19, 2022

                                                                                                             (Ranjit Singh)

                                                 President

                                     (Ranvir Kaur)

 CC No.48 of 2018

PRESENT:  Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate, for complainant   

Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate. For Ops

               Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

May,19 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

(Ranvir Kaur)