Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/475/2019

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sameer Taneja

16 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHEBAAD.

 

                                                        Complaint No.  475 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt:      09.12.2019

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.11.2023

 

Gurmail Singh son of Tirth Singh resident of village Lamba Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                          …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:                  SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.    

                                SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER                

                                      DR.K.R.NIRANIA, MEMBER

 

Present: -     Sh.Sameer Taneja, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.N.D.Mittal, counsel for Opposite party.

 

Order

SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER

 

                   The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle Car Swift bearing registration No.HR-24U-8556; that the vehicle was insured with Op vide policy No.1119003118P101470358 having validity for the period 30.04.2018 to 29.04.2019; that on 11.03.2019 when the brother of the complainant was going on the insured vehicle, it met with an accident and regarding this DDR No.2 dated 12.03.2019 was registered;  that the complainant gave intimation regarding the accident to the Op but neither surveyor nor investigator of the OP visited the spot and even did not approach the complainant; that the complainant sent an email dated 05.04.2019 with the intimation besides submitting all the requisite documents including the estimate of the aforesaid vehicle of Rs.7,26,812/-; that on the application dated 26.04.2019 of the complainant sent to the Divisional Manager of OP at Sirsa, surveyor and investigator approached the complainant and recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses; that the surveyor in his report had assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.4,49,000/-; that the complainant requested the Op to release the claim amount but it wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had no insurance contract with the Op as the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 18.12.2018. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as locus standi, estoppal, cause of action and suppression of material facts etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the vehicle car bearing registration No.HR24U-8556 was originally owned by Pawan Kumar and was insured with the OP; that said Pawan Kumar sold the vehicle in question to one Ravi who got the insurance transferred in his name by way of endorsement of the policy; that lateron complainant purchased the vehicle in question and got the ownership transferred in his name on 18.12.2018  but he did not get the insurance transferred in his name within 14 days in order to avail the benefit of insurance policy of previous owner as per G.R.17 of All India Motor Tariff; that the complainant himself has violated the terms and  conditions of the policy, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op; that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,49,000/- on net of salvage value without RC but the amount was not payable to the complainant due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy; that the intimation to the Op regarding this was given after a delay of 49 days and the email dated 05.04.2019 was sent after a delay of 25 days. Other pleas made in the compliant have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the appearing Op has tendered affidavit of Sh.B.R.Bhadu, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.RW1/A with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

3.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

4.                The Op has repudiated the claim of the complainant mainly on the grounds that there is delay of 49 days in intimating the insurance company and the complainant was having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of accident, therefore, there is clear cut violation of provision of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff, which is reproduced as under:-

“GR.17. Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance”.

5.                Undisputedly, the insured vehicle met with an accident, on 11.03.2019 (Ex.C2), during the subsistence of the policy (Annexure R1) issued in the name of Pawan Kumar, which was valid from 30.04.2018 to 27.04.2019. The fact regarding changing the ownership of the vehicle by the complainant in his name on 18.12.2018 (Annexure R5) is also not disputed.  The OP in its reply filed on 17.02.2020 has specifically taken the plea that the insurance of the vehicle was not transferred by the complainant in his name within 14 days as per GR-17 of India Motor Tariff, which is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was open for the complainant to rebut this plea and to explain on the case file as to for what reason the insurance  of the complainant was not transferred within 14 days as per GR-17 of India Motor Tariff but he did not lead any evidence to counter this plea and remained mum. 

6.                          From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made out, therefore, that the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was in order, because there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company. Although the vehicle had been purchased and its ownership was transferred by the complainant in his name only on 18.10.2018 but the complainant failed to make application for transfer of insurance policy to the insurance company within time as per GR-17 of India Motor Tariff and hence, the claim made by him for compensation on the accident of the vehicle in question is not payable by the said insurance company, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal.  The case laws titled as Raj Pal  Versus Permanent Lok Adalat & others decided in CWP No.29300 of 2018 (O&M) by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 09.12.2022, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Anil Kumar Sharma decided on 14.01.2020 by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.14435 of 2019 (O&M) relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the case in hand, therefore, same are being distinguished.  

7.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of the Op, as alleged, so as to make any of it liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 16.11.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President