Haryana

StateCommission

A/985/2015

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

YOGESH YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOYAL

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      985 of 2015

Date of Institution:      17.11.2015

Date of Decision :       08.12.2015

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Zenith House Keshav Rao, Khada Marg, Maha Laxmi, Mumbai through its Legal Manager, Ms. Meenu Sharma, ICICI Lombard GIC Limited, Plot No.149, 4^th Floor, Next to Hometel Hotel, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Yogesh Yadav s/o Sh. Dhanveer, Resident of Village Tiki, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, against the order dated September 2^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.635 of 2011.

2.      Car bearing Registration No.HR-26-J-4780, owned by Yogesh Yadav-complainant/respondent, was insured with the Insurance Company, from October 23^rd, 2009 to October 22^nd, 2010, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure-A) for Rs.1,67,438/-. On October 21^st, 2010, the car caught fire due to sudden sparking in CNG Gas Kit. Fire tenders were called which extinguished the fire. The car was totally burnt. A Daily Diary Report No.9 was lodged in Police Station, Gurgaon. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The car was taken to Apra Auto, Gurgaon and they assessed the loss of Rs.4.00 lacs. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 31^st December, 2010 on the ground that the vehicle was registered in the name of Yogesh Yadav whereas the Insurance Policy was in the name of Jai Parkash. Since there was no agreement between the registered owner/complainant and the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite party/Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply wherein it reiterated the fact stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the insured amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, 29.11.2011 and Rs.3100/- litigation expenses.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the car was registered in the name of complainant whereas it was insured in the name of Jai Parkash. In fact, the complainant had purchased the car from its previous owner Jai Parkash but the Insurance Policy was not got transferred in his name and thus there was violation of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’) and GR.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules.

6.      The issue for consideration is as to whether or not the Insurance Company was justified in denying complainant’s claim in toto on the ground that the Insurance Policy was not got transferred by the complainant in his name after purchasing it from the previous owner?

7.      In National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  Even on account of breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. 

8.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), referring to the principle laid down in Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

9.      Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. versus Manjit Kaur and others, 2000(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 441 (D.B.), held as under:-

“A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 157 shows that when a vehicle is sold with the insurance policy, the same is deemed to have been transferred to the purchaser. This deeming provision is not subject to any other limitation. It is true that sub-section (2) provides that the purchaser shall apply for the transfer of the policy in his name within 14 days to the insurance company but it does not, in any manner, provide that failure to make such application would nullify either the deemed transfer as envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 157 of the Act or the insurance policy.”

10.    The case in hand is fully covered by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal’s and Amalendu Sahoo’s cases (Supra).  Indisputably, in the instant case the car of the complainant was insured for Rs.1,67,438/- and the same was burnt during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the car on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% which the District Forum has awarded to the complainant vide impugned order.

11.    In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 08.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL