Delhi

North East

CC/323/2017

Sh. Suraj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Inidia Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 323/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Suraj Kumar S/o Ram Pukar R/o F-68. Village- Gazipur Delhi-110096.	Complainant
	Versus
	United India Insurance Co. Ltd DO-II, Jeevan Vikas Building, 30-31A, 4th Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

13.11.2017 06.03.2020 06.03.2020

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts of the present complaint shorn of unnecessary details as narrated by the complainant are that he had purchased a Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL-6S-AQ-6774 from Nirshad Ali on 21.12.2016 and the said seller had signed the sale letter and executed form 29&30 in favor of the complainant for transfer of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy No. 0402813116P112047729  in the name of Nirshad Ali w.e.f 15.12.2016 to 14.12.2017 for an IDV of Rs. 37,560/- on payment of premium of Rs. 1212/- paid by Nirshad Ali to the OP. The complainant had applied for transfer of registration to the concerned RTO office at Sarai Kale Khan Delhi but the process could not be completed due to reported mismatch of signature of Nirshad Ali on the sale documents and record available with the RTO for which reason Nirshad Ali again signed the requisite documents before the said transport authority and the vehicle was then duly transferred in the name of the complainant. However, the insurance of the said vehicle continued to be in the name of Nirshad Ali and the complainant could not get the same transferred in his name because the RC transfer in his name was delayed. The subject vehicle got stolen on 12.02.2017 while in possession in complainant and complainant lodged E FIR No. 004337/2017 u/s 379 IPC dated 12.02.2017 with Crime Branch, Delhi. Since the said vehicle could not be located, an untraced report regarding the same was submitted by the concerned PS in the court of ACMM, East District Karkardoma Delhi and was accepted as ‘untraced’ vide order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the concerned court. In the interim, the complainant submitted theft intimation and claim form NO. 0402813116C050856001/1 with OP between 13.02.2017 to 15.02.2017 after which the OP appointed its surveyor whose officer visited the complainant on 23.02.2017 on which date the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the surveyor of OP. However OP vide repudiation letter dated 01.08.2017 rejected the claim of the complainant on grounds that the insurance policy continued to be in the name of its previous owner (Nirshad Ali) whereas as per RTO receipt dated 21.12.2016, the vehicle was registered it the name of complainant and therefore complainant had no insurable interest at the time of vehicle. Therefore complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP for arbitrary rejection of the genuine claim has file the PC praying for issuance of direction against OP to pay the IDV of the said vehicle i.e. Rs. 37,560/- with interest @ 24 % p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental paid and agony and Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of RC in name of complainant, copy of insurance certificate in name of Nirshad Ali, copy of DL, copy of FIR No. 004337/2017, copy of untraced report, copy of theft intimation to RTO and MLO, Sarai Kale Khan Delhi, copy of letter dated 23.02.2017 by OP to the complainant asking for submission of requisite documents and copy of repudiation letter dated 01.08.2017.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 17.11.2017. OP entered appeared and filed written statement in which it resisted the present complaint by pleading preliminary objection that on intimation of claim by the complainant, when the OP thoroughly investigated the claim and obtain record from RTO office on 21.12.2016, it discovered that the RC was in the name of the complainant. However the insurance policy for the period 15.12.2016 to 14.12.2017 (relevant period within which theft of the subject insured bike occurred) continued to be in the name of its previous owner Nirshad Ali and therefore OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant as he had no insurable interest and gave the said intimation to the insured Nirshad Ali. Further OP submitted that the claim of the complainant was bogus / fake and the same was corroborated by the report of OP’s license surveyor (approve by IRDA) who after assessing and verifying the theft claim, also recommended repudiation of claim on ground of no insurable interest. OP through admitted the receipt of claim petition and submission of documents by the complainant to its surveyor, denied any liability to pay the claim as complainant was not entitled thereto and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by ay of affidavit was filed by the complainant to stress upon his complaint and exhibited documents relied upon as Ex1/1 to Ex1/14.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP sworn by its Senior Divisional Manager in which OP exhibited the investigation report dated 22.05.2017 filed by its Surveyor / Investigation/ Assessor namely P.S. Insurance Surveyors Pvt. Ltd
5. Written arguments were filed by both in reassertion/ reiteration of their respective grievance.
6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record filed before us.
7. Undisputedly and as admitted by both parties the RC of the subject vehicle stood transferred in the name of complainant bit the insurance certificate / policy continued to be in the name of Nirshad Ali, the erstwhile owner of the subject vehicle and the insurance was not transferred in the name of complainant at the time of theft of the vehicle. As per investigation report filed by OP, the statement given by Nirsahd Ali as well as the complainant was to the effect that the sale of the said vehicle occurred in 2015 when Nirshad Ali had sold his vehicle to the complainant and both gave statement to this effect also to the investigator of OP. Therefore from the record it is evident that the complainant failed to get the insurance transferred in his name for more than one year since the sale of the insured vehicle was effected and has not put forth any cogent explanation for his act of omission when specifically put to question by this Forum during the course of oral arguments.
8.  In catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Maha Singh 2014 (2) CPR 284, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Goli Sridhar I (2012) CPJ 101 (NC), Ram Singh Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd II (2014) CPJ 99 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasir Shah Bashir I (2016) CPJ 461 (NC) and HDFC Ergo General insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balraj Singh IV (2015) CPJ 682 apart from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 754 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there being no transfer of policy in the name of petitioner / transferee he had no insurable interest in the vehicle and respondent / Opposite Party had no liability to indemnify the complainant.  The Hon'ble National Commission in Vijayan M. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance co. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 466 (NC) laid emphasis of requirement of Section 157(2) of MV Act and GR-17 of IMT as mandatory in the event of transfer of ownership of vehicle with respect to no claim payable without having any insurable interest in the event of sale of the vehicle and non compliance of Section 157(2) of MV Act requiring transfer of certificate of insurance in the event of transfer of ownership.
9.  Therefore the OP vide repudiation letter dated 01.08.2017 to the insured rejected the claim as “No Claim”.  
10. The issue of Insurable Interest is no longer res Integra in view of land mark judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sombir in RP no. 3216/15 decided on 16.08.2016 in which the Hon'ble National Commission discussed the provision of GR-17 of IMT wherein a duty has been cast upon the transferee to make appropriate application for transfer of policy in his name in the case of vehicle transfer within 14 days of such transfer failing which he shall not be liable for payment of claim in eventuality of any claim arising on account of any untoward incident. The Hon'ble National Commission in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R. Henry Rajesh IV (2016) CPJ 558 (NC) held when the complainant did not get insurance policy transferred in his name as required u/s 157(2) of MV Act which therefore did not stands for transfer in his name on or before the date of incident, complainant was not entitled to any compensation relying upon its previous judgment of Sandeep Gupta Vs United India Insurance Co. ltd. in RP no. 2355/20012 I (2014) CPJ 493 (NC). The Hon'ble National Commission in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyam Bansal I (2017) CPJ 410 (NC) and Murlidhar Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 510 (NC) held that complainant committed illegality in obtaining insurance of vehicle in the name of previous owner where as he should have got vehicle transferred in his name and also insurance policy in his own name and failure to do so gives rise to no insurable interest of complainant in such an event since he was duty bound to have applied to insurance company for transfer of policy which if stood in the name of previous owner, shall deny the complainant of having any insurable interest in the matter and therefore repudiation of any such claim in this event is justified. The Hon'ble National Commission in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Prakash II (2018) CPJ 381 (NC) held in the said case where the vehicle purchased by the complainant from previous owner was neither intimated to the insurance company for transferring insurance in his name before date of incident and RC too existed in the name of previous owner that complainant had no contract of insurance with OP and dismissed the complaint. The Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC in recent judgment of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sharwan Goel and Anr. II (2019) CPJ 35 (Del.) held in a case where the complainant had not applied for transfer of policy in his name that he had no insurable interest on the day of theft as deemed transfer of policy under Section 157 (2) of MV Act, 1988 is restricted only to 3^rd party risks placing reliance on its own earlier judgment in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shri Praveen Dabas in FA / 871/ 2010 disposed of 13.05.2016.    
11.  In view of the facts of the present case and acts of omission / commission on the part of complainant in failure to take steps to get the insurance certificate transferred in his name, he failed to comply with the terms and condition of the insurance policy, mandatory provision of Motor Vehicle Act as also Motor Tariff General Regulation. The law laid by Hon’ble NCDRC in such cases is settled as dealt with in exhaustive legal discourse and we are of the firm view that the complainant had no insurable interest with regard to the subject vehicle in view of having failed to get the insurance certificate transferred in his name post purchase of the vehicle in 2015 or even after December 2016 as complainant has submitted prior to the date of theft on 12.02.2017, thereby having no insurable interest with regard to the subject and therefore not entitled to any claim arising thereof. Ignorance of law is no excuse as goes the maxim. The complainant had sufficient time from 2015 till early 2017 to do the needful compliance and take necessary steps as per the mandatory provisions of MV Act but failed to do so. As the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating the theft claim. Therefore, the complainant has no locus standi and is not entitled to any claim. The complaint is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits and misconceived on erroneous assumption of law. No order as to costs.          
12.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13.   File be consigned to record room.
14.   Announced on  06.03.2020

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)                        Member