Punjab

Sangrur

CC/44/2022

Sachin Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sourav Kumar

03 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 44

 Instituted on:   05.01.2022

                                                                         Decided on  :   03.07.2024      

 

Sachin Sood S/o Sh. Sudesh Sood aged about 41 years R/o S.C.F. No. 51, Grain Market Khanauri Mandi, District Sangrur.                                                                ….Complainant. 

                                          Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Railway Station Road, Sangrur, through its Divisional Manger.

                                                                ...Opposite party. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH              : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Sourav Kumar, Adv.              

For the Op                        : Shri Amanjot Singh, Adv.

 

ORDER BY

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that Jasmer Singh was the owner of Motor Car (SUV) bearing registration no. PB13-BB-9184 model name Jeep Compass Limited and maker name Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Limited (hereinafter mentioned as vehicle). Jasmer Singh previous owner got the above said vehicle insured from the op vide policy no. 2019013120P108137847 from 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021. On 20.10.2020 the IDV of the insured vehicle was fixed of Rs. 13,50,000/-. Op provided only two page cover note. The policy was not supplied to Jasmer Singh first owner. Previously the vehicle was hypothecated with AU small finance bank by Jasmer Singh and paid the outstanding dues and finance Bank issued the NOC on 22.06.2021. The previous owner namely Jasmer Singh Sold the vehicle (supra) to the complainant on 08.07.2021. Therefore, the complainant has become the consumer of the op after purchase of the vehicle. Complainant applied for transfer of ownership of the vehicle with regional transport authority, Sangrur on 08.7.2021 and deposited the requisite fees and required documents. The certificate of registration dated 19.7.2021 has been issued in the name of complainant. After issuance of RC in the name of complainant, he was to apply transfer of the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer. On 21.7.2021(within 13 days) after purchase of the vehicle at about 10.00PM, the complainant was coming with his friend on the said vehicle from Chandigarh to Barnala. The villagers were holding ‘dharna’ on the road near to village ‘Kauli’ in protest against non supply of electricity. As such, complainant adopted another route via villages. The vehicle was submerged in the heavy rain water on the road near to village Sanker and struck in the deep rain water on the road. The vehicle was badly damaged in the water. DDR was registered at PP Bahadurgarh on 22.7.2021. The intimation of the accident was immediately given to Op. The op appointed surveyor to inspect the spot. Surveyor inspected the vehicle at the spot and took photographs. At the instruction of Op, the complainant got the vehicle removed from the water with recovery van by spending Rs. 4000/- . Later on, the vehicle was brought to workshop of WSL automobiles Pvt. Limited, Mohali, which is also authorized by the manufacturer. Complainant paid Rs. 3500/- for getting the vehicle shifted from the place of accident to the workshop. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assured the complainant that the vehicle is totally damaged and the complainant will be paid full insurance amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- with interest and shifting charges. The surveyor obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank forms and papers. The Service Centre M/s WSL Automobiles, Mohali prepared the estimate of the vehicle for repair of Rs. 25,64,421/-which is more than IDV of the vehicle so the vehicle is declared as total loss. Complainant is entitled for claim of Rs. 13,50,000/-. Complainant has purchased the vehicle on 08.7.2021 and certificate of registration issued in the name of Complainant on 19.7.2021. The complainant was unable to get the policy in his name till RC issued. The accident took place within 13 days from the purchase of the vehicle. Under the law there is grace period of 14 days to apply for transfer of the insurance policy from the date of issuance of RC in his name. The RC was issued on 19.7.2021, two days before the said accidental loss. Op cannot repudiate the claim on this ground when the loss is within grace period of 14 days. Sale of goods Act not applicable in the case of sale of vehicle because in the case of sale of vehicle some legal formalities are required for transfer of ownership of the vehicle. The Op committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service qua the complainant. Complainant has to hire private taxi for his personal use and lastly prayed that the Op may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 13,50,000/- for insured vehicle alongwith interest @18% p.a from the date of accident till payment and Rs. 40,000/- paid for preparation of estimate. Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs. 100/- per day as parking charges from the date of accident till payment. Rs. 10,500/- as towing charges of the vehicle and Rs. 55,000/- as legal expenses.
2. Upon notice, Op appeared and filed written reply and taking legal objections that complainant has concealed the material fact and not come to the Commission with clean hands. Complainant has suppressed the fact that after purchase of the insured car from the original owner, complainant has neither given any intimation to the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy nor deposited the premium for transfer of the policy in his name within 14 days as prescribed under sec 157(2) of motor vehicle act. The car bearing RC No. PB13-BB-9184 was got insured by Jasmer Singh vide policy no 2019013120P108137847 from 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021. Jasmer Singh sold the car and transferred the car to the complainant on 8.7.2021 by way of affidavit and has delivered the possession of the car to the complainant. In this way the sale is complete as per section 4(3) of the sale of goods act. Thereafter, complainant deposited the necessary fee for change of ownership in his favour. There is no privity of contract between the parties.  Vehicle was transferred by the competent authority on 19.7.2021. Till 21.7.2021 neither any intimation was given to the Op to transfer of the insurance policy in the name of the complainant nor deposited the transfer fee for insurance policy. Complainant made request for transfer of policy in his name on 29.7.2021. Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan was deputed as final surveyor on 28.7.2021 to assess the loss to the insured vehicle, who inspected the vehicle at workshop M/s WSL automobile, Mohali and assessed the loss as under :-

1. On repair loss basis Rs-14,003,307/-
2. On NOS with RC Rs- 9,53,307/
3.  On NOS without RC Rs – 11,96,000/-(Salvage Value Rs. 1,52,000/-)

Thereafter, matter was referred to M/s Ametek another surveyor for second opinion with regard to wreck valuation of the vehicle on NOS without RC, who vide his report valued the wreck @Rs.1,74,000/- on NOS without RC basis and assessed the loss of Rs. 11,74,000/-. The complainant wrongly claimed loss of Rs. 13,50,000/-. On merits, the complainant became the consumer of the op on transfer of the policy w.e.f. 19.10.2021. Repudiation of the claim is legal and justified. The pleadings of reply on merits are similar to legal objections. So, there is no need to retreat the same to avoid repetition. The remaining allegation are denied by Op and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with special costs.

3. Complainant has tendered in his evidence Ex. C-1 affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op tendered into evidence Ex.Op/1 self attested affidavit and Ex.Op/2 copy of form no. 24 and closed the evidence.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer?
5. It is not disputed that complainant had applied for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle with the regional transport authority, Sangrur on 08.7.2021 and deposited the all requisite fee. As per para no. 6 of the complaint the complainant pleaded that the certificate of registration dated 19.7.2021 has been issued as the transfer of ownership in the name of complainant. Further, as per para no. 7 of the complaint, complainant specifically pleaded that he was to apply for transfer of insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the transfer of the RC. On 21.7.2021, the vehicle was badly damaged in the water. The complainant removed the vehicle from the water with the crane. The bearing RC No. PB13-BB-9184 was got insured by Jasmer Singh vide policy no 2019013120P108137847 from 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021. Jasmer Singh sold the car and transferred the car to the complainant on 8.7.2021 by way of affidavit and delivered the possession of the car to the complainant. No intimation regarding the sale or purchase of the car has been given to Op neither by the complainant nor by the previous owner. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op.
6. On the other hand, In reply of Op legal objections in para no. 3 specifically pleaded that complainant made request for transfer of policy in his name on 29.7. 2021. The insurance policy was transferred in the name of complainant. Per contra, it transpires from the perusal of Ex. Op.2, the form no. 24(Motor Vehicle register) the Punjab Transport department authority, Sangrur(RTA) has shown the transfer date as 09.7.2021. From the factum of the case, the complainant applied on 08.7.2021 for transfer of RC in his name from the first owner. As per Ex.Op.2 the transfer date mentioned as 09.7.2021. “A man can lie, but document can’t.”
7. This Commission has examined the document Ex.C.2, private car package policy. In this policy document has shown, the policy’s valid from 19.10.2021 to 19.10.2021. We feel after perusal of Ex.C-2, there is typographic mistake of the policy (supra) which may be valid since 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021. Moreover, Op admitted this factum in reply para no. 2 of the legal objections, with regard to policy in question is valid from 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021.  On page no. 2 of Ex.C-2, the engine no. of the vehicle mentioned as 4018003 and Chassis no. MCAAJPCY5JFA26702. The insured declared value of  the vehicle in question has shown as Rs. 13,50,000/-. After perusal of Ex.C-3, the registration certificate bearing registration no. PB13-BB-9184 has shown the date of registration is 01.5.2018, which is valid till 30.4.2033. The RTA, Sangrur issued the RC in the name of complainant. Ex.C-5 is DDR no. 18 dated 22.7.2021 was registered at PP, Bahadurgarh. As per Ex.C-6, E-fee receipt dated 8.7.2021 issued by the transport department, Govt. of Punjab(RTA,Sangrur) regarding the transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing registration no. PB13-BB-9184. The total fees deposited by the complainant of Rs. 3735/-. After perusal of Ex.C-8, the form no. 28 form of notice of transfer of ownership of motor vehicle duly singed by the first owner in the name of complainant. Similarly, as per Ex.C-7, form no. 30 report of transfer of ownership of the vehicle Part-1 for the use of transfer also executed by the original owner namely Jasmer Singh in favour of the complainant. Moreover, as per Ex.C-10, the original owner also executed an affidavit in favour of the complainant, which was duly attested by the notary public, Sangrur on 8.7.2021. According to Ex.C-11 affidavit dated 8.7.2021 executed by the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle from Jasmer Singh, which was duly verified by the complainant. In the affidavit complainant verified that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. As such, the affidavit of purchase of the vehicle executed between the complainant and the same was attested by the notary public, Sangrur on 8.7.2021.
8. It transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-14 temporary estimate prepared on 26.7.2021 by the M/s WSL automobile, Mohali of Rs. 25,64,421/-. The authorized signatory put their signature on the same and embossis their official stamp on the bottom of page no. 6. As per Ex.C-15 an Email dated 23.12.2021 issued by the Op repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant did not intimate the insurance company regarding the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle within stipulated time as per the perusal of the Motor vehicle Act. From the perusal of reply of Op in para no. 4 & 5 of legal objection pleaded that Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan was deputed as final surveyor on 28.7.2021 to assess the loss of insured vehicle. In the interim survey report assessed the loss on following modes:-

1. On repair loss basis Rs-14,003,307/-
2. On NOS with RC Rs- 9,53,907/
3.  On NOS without RC Rs – 11,96,000/-(Salvage Value Rs. 1,52,000/-)

9. Thereafter, matter was referred to M/s Ametek another surveyor for second opinion with regard to wreck valuation of the vehicle on NOS without RC, who vide his report valued the wreck @Rs.1,74,000/- on NOS without RC basis and assessed the loss of Rs. 11,74,000/-. We feel the first estimate prepared by the surveyor of Rs. 25,64,421/- per contra, second opinion of surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 11,74,000/-.However, as per reply of Op in para no. 4, first surveyor Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan mentioned in his report NOS with RC is Rs.9,53,307/- on the other hand NOS without RC Rs.11,96,000/-(Salvage Value mentioned as Rs.1,52,000/-). Per contra, reply in para no.5 of Op mentioned the surveyor M/s Ametek has given second opinion with regard to wreck of Rs. 1,74,000/- on NOS without RC. As per second opinion of surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 11,74,000/-. This Commission has considered view that both the surveyors report is too much variation with regard to their opinion regarding the damaged vehicle in question.. In this juncture, the surveyor Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan assessed the loss seems to “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.
10. As per Ex.C-9 and Ex.Op.2, both documents are the same. In these vital documents complainant deposited the transfer of ownership fee on 9.7.2021 and Motor Vehicle Tax (Life Time) of Rs. 1,01,598/- alongwith other fee to the regional transport authority, Sangrur. The secretary put his signature and embossis his official stamp on the same. Finance AU Small Bank had issued NOC on 22.6.2021.

It is incumbent upon the Op to prove their surveyor reports by way of cogent material and trustworthy evidence on record. But the Op did not do so the reason best known to them. “The person who seeks equity must do equity.” As per pleadings of the complainant in para no. 8 specifically pleaded that on 21.7.2021 within 13 days after purchase of the vehicle was submerged in the heavy rain water. On the road the vehicle was badly damaged. As per para no. 5 of the complaint, Complainant pleaded that the vehicle bearing no. PB13-BB-9184 sold by the previous owner namely Jasmer Singh to the complainant on 8.7.2021. This Commission has examined the record file minutely. Op has failed to produce on record the first surveyor report of Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan and second surveyor report of M/s Ametek. However, reply of Op on merits in para no. 5 specifically pleaded that the complainant became the consumer of Op on transfer of policy on 19.10.2021. Per contra, as per Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant pleaded in para no. 5 that the vehicle in question was sold by previous owner on 8.7.2021. Therefore, complainant has become the consumer (insured) of the Op after purchase of the vehicle. Further, in para no. 6 of the complaint, complainant pleaded that on 8.7.2021, complainant applied for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle with RTA, Sangrur. On 09.7.2021, RC has been issued in the name of the complainant on account of transfer of ownership. This factum also mentioned in RC of complainant which is Ex.C-3. On 21.7.2021, an accident occurred with the vehicle. The vehicle was badly damaged in the water. DDR was lodged on 22.7.2021. In this context, at the time of accident of the vehicle i.e. 21.7.2021, the complainant having valid and legal certificate of registration of the vehicle, which was issued on 19.7.2021 as per Ex.C-3. Moreover, reply of Op legal objections in para no. 1 Op pleaded that complainant has neither given intimation nor deposited the premium fee for transfer of the insurance policy in his name within 14 days as prescribed under Section 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. In this juncture, Complainant has become owner of vehicle on 19.7.2021 after transfer of RC in his name. RC was issued in the name of the complainant on 19.7.2021 i.e. two days before the accidental loss of the vehicle. This Commission has the considered view that the complainant has legal right to apply within 14 days for transfer of the insurance policy from the date of issuance of RC in his name. This Commission has no hesitation to hold that the complainant is the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle, being a good citizen and law abiding person, complainant applied for the transfer of the RC of the vehicle on 8.7.2021 on the same day of the purchase of the vehicle. Both the seller and the purchaser of the vehicle executed the document which were duly singed and attested by the previous owner in favour of the complainant. Unfortunately, an accident occurred two days after transfer of the RC in name of the complainant i.e. 21.7.2021. From this angle, the complainant is the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle at the time of accident i.e. 21.7.2021. We feel that complainant has no fault at all on the basis of complainant having 14 days to transfer of the insurance policy in his name under section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Moreover, insurance policy of the vehicle is not invalid at the time of accident i.e. 21.7.2021 The Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act. It prevails on the general Act. Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation on which protects the rights of the innocent Consumers. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant more forced on document regarding Right to Information department of the Op clarify dated 16.8.2016 which was produced alongwith the referred judgment. In this document the relevant portion is reproduced as under :-

“ If the name of the insured is not changed in the insurance policy and if the claim happens within 14 days from the change of name in the RC book, the claim amount will be paid to the new owner as mentioned in the RC Book.”

11. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties as well as documentary evidence led by them, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that on the part of complainant has no delay to lodged the claim with the Op. We feel that the insurance company received huge amount by way of premium and issue  the insurance policy to the innocent consumers frequently. On the other hand, Civil Society Phenomenon is toward the insurance  Companies  are avoiding by one pretext  or another  to pay the liability of insurance claim to the aggrieved consumers, we feel that  an insurance contract is known as a contract of “ uberrima fides” based  on “ utmost good faith” which is fully applicable in the present complaint. The Consumer Commissions are duty bound to provide justice to the deserving consumers. The Consumer Commission redresses the grievances through justice to the innocent consumers, but the justice seems to be. We feel that the complainant is liable for relief. This is a fit case to redress the grievances of the complainant. This Commission has relying upon the celebrity judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance IV (2017) CPJ 10(SC), it held that in the instant complaint at hand, the ground of rejection was purely on technical grounds in a mechanical manner which could not be held to be sustainable and which was therefore set aside.
12. This Commission has put the query to the learned counsel for the complainant during arguments regarding the damaged vehicle is in the possession of complainant or not? Then the learned counsel for complainant replied that the damaged vehicle is in the possession of the complainant.
13. Resultantly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand and with careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record  and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Op to make the payment of Rs. 13,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing the complaint till realization to the complainant. The complainant will deliver the possession of damaged vehicle with RC to the Op at the time of receiving the awarded amount. Further the Op is directed to pay consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
14. This order be complied by Op within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
16. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.   

                                Announced.

                                03 July, 2024.

 

 

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President