Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/75/2020

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ms. Daropti Swami

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                                                                   Complaint No.: 75 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 9.11.2020.

                                                                   Date of Decision:  21.8.2024.

Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Rajbir Singh, resident of village Bhagwi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

..….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       United India Insurance Company Limited, regional office-1 8^th floor, Kanchanjunga building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Branch Manager.

2.       United India Insurance Company Limited having its branch office at Charkhi Dadri through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …...Opposite Party

                             COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Dharampal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Taxak, Adv. for the complainant.

Shri Anil Kumar Gehlawat, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:-

                   The case of the complainants in brief, is that he is registered owner of Car Xylo No.HR-55W-5233, which was insured with the OPs vide policy No. 0413823118P108676436 from 4.10.2018 to 3.10.2019.  It is averred that on 18.9.2019 when the car reached near village Morwala at Bigowa road, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, suddenly a herd of stray animals came in front of car and to save them, driver at once tried to stop car but it got unbalanced and dashed with canal’s flyover and the car caught fire.  It is further averred that at the time of accident, the car was driven by Monu son of Rohtash Singh, resident of village Bhagwi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, who is cousin brother of complainant.  It is further averred that Monu had intimated the Police Chowki Imlota and  they got registered Rapat No. 15 dated 25.9.2019.  It is further averred that immediately after the accident, Monu had informed the fire brigade and action was taken by fire brigade, Municipal Council, Charkhi Dadri and the complainant had paid Rs.800/- for fire brigade charges.  It is further averred that the complainant had intimated the OPs regarding accident and the OPs have registered claim No. 0413823119C050021001/1 and deputed a surveyor for spot survey.  It is further averred that on the instructions of the OPs, the complainant had got prepared the estimate of vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.7,75,000/-  from Car Zone, near Mejban Chowk, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri.  It is further averred that the complainant had requested the OPs for final survey through their authorized surveyor.  It is further averred that surveyor had visited the site and assured the complainant that he would submit his report in few days and advised the complainant to deposit all other documents.  It is further averred that on assurance of surveyor the complainant had submit his claim with the OPs alongwith all the documents.  It is further averred that after completing all the formalities, the OPs did not pass any order on the claim of the complainant and then the complainant has got served a legal notice to OP No. 1.  It is further averred that the OP No. 2 has sent a baseless reply to the complainant’s counsel and denied to settle the claim.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs have filed written statement alleging therein that Car No.HR-55W-5233 was insured with them vide insurance policy No.0413823118P108676436 w.e.f. 4.10.2018 to 3.10.2019 and at that time RC of the vehicle in question was in the name of M/s AVER CABS Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office address at 905, Sector-21, Gurgaon (Haryana).  It is averred that the present complainant had purchased the Car Xylo No. HR-55W-5233 on 1.5.2019 and the RC of the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant on 29.8.2019.  It is further averred that Police report with the P.P. Imlota, District Charkhi Dadri was lodged with the police vide Rapat No. 15 dated 25.9.2019 and vehicle in question caught fire on 18.9.2019, whereas the insurance policy was in the name of M/s AVER CABS Pvt. Ltd. and as such the claim of the present complainant was rightly repudiated by the answering OPs vide letter dated 17.2.2020, as the above vehicle was not in the name of present complainant and he had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question, as he had not got transferred the policy of insurance in his name.  It is further averred that as per law the complainant is a stranger to the insurance policy, as there is no privity of contract between the present complainant and the answering OPs.  It is further averred that the present complainant has violated the mandatory provision of Section 157 of the MV Act, 1988.  Hence, in view of the facts mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the duly sworn in affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to C8 in evidence and closed the evidence on 29.9.2022.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs has failed in producing any evidence in support of their case despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of the OPs was closed by order dated 8.9.2023. 

5.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the insurance company was aware of change of ownership of vehicle.  He further submitted that the insurance company is estopped from raising the plea that no insurable interest in favour of subsequent owner.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 reiterated the contents of the written statement.  Ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has argued that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question, as he had not got transferred the insurance policy in his name.  He has further argued that as per law the complainant is a stranger to the insurance policy, as there is no privity of contract between the present complainant and answering OPs.  He placed his reliance upon RP No. 2118 of 2012, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar, decided on 19.3.2013 by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, Civil Appeal No. 2131 of 1994, M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., decided on 21.11.1995 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, RP No. 3267 of 2003, Madan Singh Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., decided on 2.12.2008 by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi and RP No. 4387 of 2009, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Chandrakant Bhujangrao Jogdand decided on 1.3.2010, by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is admitted fact that at the time of accident i.e. 18.9.2019, the insurance of the vehicle in question had not been transferred in the name of complainant.  Now, the only question arises whether there was any insurable interest of the complainant or not?  The sought answer is no, because at the relevant time of accident, the insurance policy was not transferred in complainant’s name.  As per Section 157 of the MV Act says that “When vehicle which met with an accident was sold prior to the date of accident and neither the transferor nor the transferee gave any intimation to the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle, the Insurance Company will not be liable.  It is only after the Insurance Company is informed of the transfer of vehicle, if anything is not done by the insurer in the matter of effecting transfer of policy, then only the Insurance Company can be made liable”.  Moreover, the facts of the case New India Assurance Col. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar decided by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi produced by ld. counsel for the OPs are also fully applicable to the facts of present case.  In the above case, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that: -

“If the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of registration of vehicle in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim to the transferee in case of theft of the vehicle.  Thus, we are of the view that petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim and there is no deficiency in service on their part”

and the Hon’ble National Commission set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and the complaint was dismissed.  

          The OPs have fully proved their stand by leading documentary evidence.  On the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove his case.  From the perusal of Ex. C2, Insurance Policy, it is clear that at the time of accident, complainant has no insurable interest, as the insurance was not in his name.  There was no privity of contract between complainant and insurance company.  Thus, it is proved on record beyond any doubt that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of accident. 

9.                So, in our view, now the complainant is not consumer qua the OPs at the time of accident.  Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order to cost.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.