STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.63 of 2011)

1.                 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.123-24, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Chief Regional Officer.

2.                 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, through its Branch Manager.

……Appellants/OPs

V e r s u s

Vijay Sundram son of Sh. K. Sundram r/o H.No.A-1976, SGM Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana.

              ....Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                           This appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), has been filed by the OPs against the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was allowed and the OPs were directed to  pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant towards the loss of the vehicle alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a used Mahindra Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No.HR-66-2628 from Sh.Sunil Kumar. The said jeep was insured with OPs for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.5 lacs for the period from 14.09.2009 to 06.09.2010. After purchase of the car, the complainant got the registration transferred in his favour on 08.09.2009. He also got the insurance policy transferred in his name on 14.09.2009. However, on 29.09.2009, the said jeep was stolen. He reported the matter to the police and the F.I.R. No.248 dated 30.09.2009 was recorded in Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant informed the OPs about the theft and also submitted his claim along with the requisite documents, but the claim was not settled. Ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 08.06.2010 but even thereafter the claim was not paid. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                           In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of Sh.Sunil Kumar for the period from 14.09.2009 to 06.09.2010 and that the said insurance policy was got transferred  on 14.09.2009 in the name of the complainant. It has also been admitted that the intimation regarding the theft was received. The case of OPs is that untraced report was not submitted by the complainant in time which resulted in delay in settlement of the claim. It has further been pleaded that one Er. Shanti Sawroop Sharma was appointed as surveyor to assess the market value of the vehicle as on 29.09.2009. As per his report, the market value of the vehicle in question was Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of its theft. It has been averred that the claim was processed accordingly. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                           The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                           After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 9.3.2011 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                           We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/OPs at the admission stage and have perused the record.

7.                           According to Section 18 of the Act, provisions of Section 12, 13 and 14 and the Rules made thereunder for the disposal of the complaint by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission.  The procedure regarding admission of complaints by the District Forum is given in Section 12 of the Act ibid and therefore, the same procedure would be applicable to the present appeal.  Sub Section (3) of  Section 12 of the Act reads as under:-

                             “(3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected.

                             Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant.

                             Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received.

                        It is, therefore, not necessary for this Commission to admit in routine every appeal filed by the appellant.  The appellant has to show sufficient grounds in his favour for the admission of the appeal.

8.                           We have given opportunity to the Counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record called from the Learned District Forum on the point, whether the present appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same need not be admitted for regular hearing.

9.                           The first ground taken by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the report of Er. Shanti Sawroop Sharma, who was appointed as surveyor to assess the market value of the stolen vehicle has not been accepted by the Learned District Forum and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. We do not find any merit in this argument.  The report of the surveyor is not a sacrosanct document against which no fingers can be raised.  In the present case, it is interesting to note that the Surveyor assessed the value of the vehicle which had already been stolen and he did not even have the opportunity of inspecting the vehicle of which the value was being assessed by him.  He has submitted the evaluation certificate Annexure R-1 and his affidavit Annexure R-2 to the effect that the market value of the vehicle on 29.02.2009 was Rs.3.50 lacs.  He has not mentioned the criteria as to how, he assessed the value thereof.  The OPs have not produced any document to suggest as to what is the market value of a new vehicle of this brand, how much depreciation the vehicle shall carry and how the value of Rs.3.50 lacs could be assessed.  He did not have even the opportunity of inspecting the vehicle and could not know the condition thereof. He did not  even consider the fact that the said vehicle had been insured by the OP themselves for a sum of Rs.5 lacs against which no objection was raised by the OP and the insurance policy Annexure C-1 was issued by them, admitting that the value of the vehicle on 14.09.2009 was Rs.5 lacs. The Policy Annexure C-1 itself is sufficient to hold that the market value of the vehicle was Rs.5 lacs. The vehicle was stolen 15 days later on 29.09.2009 and it is not explained by Er. Shanti Sawroop Sharma, Surveyor or the OPs as to how the value of the vehicle would come down by Rs.1.5 lacs just within 15 days, which amounts to a depreciation of Rs.10,000/- per day.  The report submitted by the surveyor was therefore rightly rejected by the Learned District Forum.

10.                       It has generally been noticed that the insurance companies issue the policy of insurance by taking full premium from the insured and when the time comes to compensate the insured in case of accident or theft, they start coining excuses to evade their liability to make the payment of compensation.  The present one is a unique case of the same nature in which the vehicle was insured 15 days back for Rs.5 lacs and when it was stolen, its value was sought to be brought down to Rs.3.5 lacs.  The OPs/appellants did not realize that by resorting to these unfair trade practices, they were causing immense harassment to the insured.  They did not even realize that such like tactics would not pay any dividend.

11.                       The Learned Counsel for the appellant has then referred to para no. 3, 4 and 5 of their reply and argued that the settlement of the claim was delayed due to the fault of the complainant because he did not submit the untraced report alongwith the Court Orders.  The Learned Counsel argued that it is the responsibility of the insured to obtain the untraced report from the Police authorities or the Court and thereafter bring it to their office.  When asked, the Learned Counsel did not find any such condition in the Insurance Policy Annexure C-1. There is no other agreement between the parties to this effect nor the Law or Rules requiring the complainant/ insured to perform this job have been produced.  We are of the opinion that it is not the job of the complainant to run after the Police authorities in persuading them to submit the untraced report and thereafter to persuade the Court to accept the same and to issue a certificate to him or to produce any such certificate before the insurance company. If the OPs need any such report, they may procure it through the investigator or surveyor appointed by them, who contacts the complainant/insured and inquires about the theft.  He also approaches the Police about the registration of the FIR and may therefore obtain the untraced report of their liking. We are of the opinion that though there is no such requirement of submitting untraced report to the OPs by the complainant, yet if the OPs require any such untraced report, they shall procure the same from the concerned Police station or the Court, themselves through their investigator or surveyor and cannot ask the complainant to produce the same. Asking the complainant to produce the untraced report as mentioned by the OPs is, therefore, an unfair trade practice and a cause of harassment to the complainant.  This argument of the Learned Counsel therefore cannot be accepted as correct.

12.                       Otherwise also the Police authorities are not under the control of the complainant/insured. The Police have its own ways of investigation and take their own time in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle is not likely to be recovered.  It depends on the IO concerned, as to how much time he would take in submitting such a report.  If for instance, an investigating Officer takes 5 years to submit this report, we cannot hold that compensation should not be paid for 5 years.  The delay on the part of the OPs in making the payment of the claim to the complainant on the ground of untraced report cannot be justified. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the OPs should only wait for a reasonable period of say about 3 or 4 months for the recovery of the vehicle and if it is not recovered during the said period, they should promptly make the payment of compensation to the complainant, whether untraced report has been received or not.

13.                       The Learned Counsel for the appellants has also argued that it is the duty of the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the OPs before he gets the amount of compensation and in this respect, letters Annexure R-3 dated 20.10.2010 and Annexure R-4 dated 07.01.2011 were written to the complainant but he did not get the vehicle transferred and, therefore, is not entitled to any compensation. We do not find any merit in this contention. The procedure adopted by the OPs and the condition imposed by them is, in fact, contrary to the Law.

                    Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:-

                        “50. Transfer of ownership  - (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,

 (a) the transferor shall,-

                             (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and

                             (ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)-

                  (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or

                  (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,-

                                      (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or

                                      (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee      if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48,

together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such           certificate on requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;

(b)     the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.”

Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 reads as follows:-

                                    “55. Transfer of ownership.- (1) Where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or have their place of business.

                                    (2) An application for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 50 shall be made by the transferee in Form 30, and shall be accompanied by_

(i) the certificate of registration;

(ii) the certificate of insurance; and

(iii) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81

                                    (3) An application for transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 50 shall be made by the transferee in Form 30 and shall, in addition to the documents and fee referred to in sub-rule (2), be accompanied by one of the following documents, namely:-

(a) no objection certificate granted by the registering authority under sub-section (3) of Section 48; or

(b) an order of the registering authority refusing to grant the no objection certificate under sub-section (3) of Section 48 or

(c) where the no objection certificate or the order, as the case may be, has not been received, a declaration by the transferor that he has not received any such communication together with-

(i)                the receipt obtained from the registering authority under sub-section (20 of Section 48; or

(ii)              the postal acknowledgment received from the registering authority where the application for no objection certificate has been sent by post.”

                        The combined reading of these provisions leaves no doubt to conclude that the transferor i.e. the complainant is only to report about the fact of transfer in Form No. 29 to the Registering Authority concerned and send a copy of the same to the OP.  Thereafter it is the duty of the transferee i.e. the OPs/appellants that they shall, within 30 days of the transfer, report the transfer to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction they have the place of business and shall forward the certificate of Registration to that Registering Authority, together with the prescribed fee alongwith a copy of the report received by them from the complainant, in order that the ownership may be entered in the certificate of Registration. The Law therefore requires the transferee to get the vehicle transferred in his favour, pay the fee and get the entry made in the copy of the Registration.  Very cleverly and contrary to the Law, the OPs are asking the complainant to perform this duty, which by law is the duty of the OPs itself and not of the complainant.  This also is an unfair trade practice being adopted by the OPs, thereby harassing the complainant and others, similarly placed.

14.                       It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the complainant is to give a letter of subrogation, undertaking and an affidavit that if the RC and keys have been lost with the vehicle, he will handover the same if it is found later on and indemnify the OPs/appellants if the RC has been misused by any body acting under his control.  The Learned Counsel for the OPs/appellants could not refer to any such condition in the policy of insurance under which such letter of subrogation, undertaking or affidavit is to be submitted by the complainant. He also has not been able to refer to any such provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules made there under.  The only requirement as referred to above is that the complainant is to submit the report of transfer in Form No. 29 to the Registering Authority concerned with a copy to the OP and the rest of the job is to be done by the OPs themselves.  This argument of the Learned Counsel is also devoid of merit.

15.                       In the present case the vehicle was stolen on 29.09.2009. The complainant filed the present complaint on 02.07.2010 and till then the payment of compensation had not been made to him.  Before filing the present complaint the complainant had served a notice Annexure C-6 dated 08.06.010 but it had no effect on the deaf ears of the OPs/appellants.  The OPs filed the reply before the Learned District Forum on 04.10.2010 and have mentioned in para no. 3 of the reply that the claim of the complainant was under process and would be settled in a short period, meaning thereby that even till 04.10.2010, the OPs had not settled the claim.  The complainant demanded a compensation of Rs.2 lacs for the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs/appellants and the harassment caused to him by delaying the settlement of the claim. The Learned District Forum was however soft towards the OPs/appellants and only a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation. The vehicle was insured for Rs.5 lacs on 14.09.2009 and it was stolen within 15 days thereof.  Ordinarily, the complainant would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs.5 lacs but he modestly demanded Rs.4.5 lacs for the loss of the vehicle. In this manner, the OPs/appellant was dealt with softly in every respect but unfortunately, still it felt dissatisfied with the impugned order and filed the present appeal without any reasons therefor.

16.                       In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the OPs/appellants have been dealt with leniency and sufficient compensation for unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs and for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant by delaying the payment of compensation has not been awarded to the complainant. However, since there is no appeal filed by the complainant, we cannot enhance the amount of compensation in this appeal filed by the OPs.  The result is that the appeal is not worth admission for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Needless to mention that the complainant would report the fact of transfer in Form No. 29 of the Rules referred to above to the Registering Authority and send a copy of the same to the OPs. The complainant would also handover the keys of the vehicle and the RC, if the same is in his possession and has not been stolen alongwith vehicle. 

17.                       Needless to mention that the OP, being a public sector company, should not suffer due to the lapse on the part of its employees. They would be free to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.7,000/- as litigations costs and interest, as awarded by the ld. District Forum, from its Branch Manager or other employee(s), who had been guilty of adopting unfair trade practice, as referred to in the order, and/or delaying the payment of compensation to the complainant.  The recovery should be made, of course, after serving a notice on the said Branch Manager/employee(s), as required under the Rules applicable to them. 

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

20^th  April, 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg