Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/95/2018

Ombir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohd. Uzair

13 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/95/2018
Date of Institution	:	15/02/2018
Date of Decision	:	13/02/2019

 

Ombir s/o Sh. Inder Singh resident of VPO Kiloi Khas Rohtak, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-9, First Floor, above Central Bank of India, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager.

2.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Corporate Office Unit 401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400059 through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mohd. Uzair, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sahil Abhi, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of allegations as made out from the consumer complaint are, complainant had got insured his car bearing registration No.PB-01-B-1090 w.e.f 28.6.2017 to 27.6.2018 through insurer/OP-1.  It is the case, the vehicle met with an accident.  Date, month and year not specified, but, probably during the operational period of the insurance policy, referred to above and bill of Rs.42,715/- was raised by Em Pee Motors Limited and the claim was submitted to the OPs. However, the said claim was rejected by the OPs on the ground, complainant had sold the vehicle to one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar regarding which affidavit was submitted, however, neither the registration certificate nor the insurance certificate was transferred in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Maintained, complainant had supplied the affidavit of non-sale of vehicle to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, but, finally the claim was rejected on the same ground.  Hence, there has been deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayer is made for refund of Rs.42,715/- alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. 
2.         OPs filed their joint reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable and justified repudiation of the claim on the ground, vehicle was sold to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and he had submitted the papers of claim and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated as no insurable interest had been transferred in favour of the transferee.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          Per pleadings of the parties, admitted facts are accident had taken place during the operation of the insurance certificate w.e.f. 28.6.2017 to 27.6.2018 and repair bill of Rs.42,715/- was raised by Em Pee Motors and this claim was rejected on the sole ground, complainant had sold the vehicle to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar by way of affidavit though RC and insurance was not transferred.
7.         We shall refer here to a copy of the affidavit dated 28.7.2017 (Annexure OP-5) which shows, complainant had notarized affidavit to the effect that the vehicle in question was sold by him to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Omkar r/o H.No.251, S.B.I. Colony, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. There is no denial that no such affidavit was executed by the complainant in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Not only this, claim record was submitted by the OPs which shows, two owners were referred in the claim submitted – first complainant and then Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.  This itself leads to the inference and conclusion that vehicle was in fact sold by the complainant in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar by way of affidavit without taking into confidence the financier i.e. the banking institution as is deduced from the documents produced on record.  Had Sh. Sanjeev Kumar preferred the consumer complaint or say asserted the purchase of the said vehicle by way of affidavit of the complainant in his favour, then we could have pressed into service, if permissible under law, that automatically the insurance of the vehicle had also been transferred in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar by taking into account the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, before us, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar is not at all complainant.
8.         Now the complainant i.e. the registered owner has furnished an affidavit that he had not sold this vehicle and affidavit, if any, furnished is cancelled. It is a misnomer that affidavit can be cancelled.  It is a statement furnished on oath and there is no provision to get that statement cancelled or say retracted as it may lead to criminal prosecution for furnishing of false evidence even though the affidavit furnished for non-sale is not at all attested even by the complainant himself.  Therefore, the grounds of repudiation of the claim submitted by the insurer seems to be justifiable as there remained no insurable interest in favour of the complainant.
9.         Annexure OP-2 further shows, surveyor had also mentioned and assessed the damage to the tune of Rs.42,480/-and in the details of driver, driver’s name was mentioned as Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, second owner.  In the situation, two persons cannot be deemed to be the owners of the vehicle in question and moreover RC still subsists in the name of the complainant and even the financier’s no objection was not taken before furnishing the affidavit of sale.
10.         Learned counsel for the OPs relied on case titled as v. Mahaboob Basha & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2011) CPJ 193 (NC) and the relevant paragraphs 2,4 & 5 thereof are reproduced as under :-

“2.    The facts of the case are that the first petitioner (first complainant before the District Forum) purchased a motor vehicle which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company with the IDV of Rs.5,44,000 for the period 21.6.2004 to 20.6.2005. The vehicle met with an accident on 4.5.2005 and sustained damage. The first petitioner informed the police as well as the Insurance Company and got the vehicle repaired at the cost of Rs.1,47,092. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim of the first petitioner on the ground that he had sold the vehicle to the second complainant before the date of the accident. This led the first petitioner, along with the second petitioner, to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, by its order dated 28.2.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,36,092 towards the insurance claim, Rs.2,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000 towards cost. However, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company by holding that the first complainant/ petitioner could not have claimed the insurance amount because he was no more the owner of the vehicle, having sold the vehicle before the date of accident. On the other hand, the second complainant could also not claim the insurance amount because the insurance policy had not been transferred in his name before the date of the accident. The State Commission also observed that in arriving at its conclusion, the District Forum had relied upon a decision pertaining to a third party liability which was not relevant to the present case.

4.     Even a cursory perusal of these reasons would show that they do not, by a long shot, constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of this delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay, and hence, the revision petition are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even on merits, there is hardly any room for interference with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission which does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity.

5.     The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.”

Further relied on case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.C. Deenadayal & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC) in which vehicle was sold by complainant 1 to complainant 2, registration of vehicle continued in the name of complainant 1 even after sale/purchase of the vehicle, complainant 2 running vehicle as defacto owner, relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act not followed.   It was held purchaser of the vehicle was not entitled to relief in absence of contract between the parties and defacto possession of vehicle would not confer any legal right in favour of the purchaser and he was found not entitled for relief.  

11.         Again in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Divya Prashad, I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC) there was breach of policy conditions under the Motor Vehicles Act and vehicle met with an accident and insurance claim filed, it was held that credible evidence that vehicle was sold to RK so no insurable interest of the complainant at the time of accident and, therefore, the relief was denied.
12.         Taking into consideration the facts of the present case as well as the precedents of the Hon’ble National Commission, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.   Hence, we proceed to dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/02/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President