State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mahabir Singh Bisht & Another on 30 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 135 / 2009
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Branch Manager, Kohli Hospital Building
Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun
Through Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht S/o Sh. Banveer Singh Bisht
R/o Village Bheti, Patwarivrit Ghat via Nandprayag,
District and Tehsil Chamoli
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Branch Ghat (Nandprayag) Tehsil and District Chamoli
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Mr. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Vivek Painuli, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 30/10/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This is insurer's appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli, allowing the consumer complaint No. 01/2008 and directing the insurance company - opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 84,700/- to the complainant within a month.
2. The consumer complaint decided by the District Forum, Chamoli vide impugned order involves a dispute between Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht - complainant and National Insurance Company Ltd.- opposite party No. 1 2 (in short "Insurer") with regard to non-settlement of insurance claim filed by the complainant. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the consumer complaint, are that the vehicle, bearing registration No. UP-07- C- 9546 was insured with the insurer for the period from 10.07.2004 to 09.07.2005 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle from Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur, but the registration certificate and insurance policy were still in the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur. The said vehicle met with an accident on 08.03.2005. The complainant informed the insurer as well as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ghat Branch, Chamoli - opposite party No. 2 immediately. The insurer deputed a Surveyor, who inspected the said vehicle on 10/11.03.2005 and directed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired and told him that the amount spent on repair would be reimbursed to him by the insurer. The complainant accordingly got the vehicle repaired, in which he spent a sum of Rs. 84,700/-. The complainant sent all the bills pertaining to the vehicle's repair to the insurer for reimbursement, but the insurer did not make any payment to him. The complainant sent a notice through his counsel to the opposite parties, but to no avail. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 07.07.2009 and directed the opposite party No. 1 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1-insurer has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and perused the record pertaining to the case. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the registered owner of the vehicle is Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur and the subject vehicle has also been insured in his favour. Till the date of accident, the vehicle was neither transferred in the name of respondent No.1-complainant nor the insurance policy was transferred in his favour. Thus, the respondent No. 1 had no 3 insurable interest in the said vehicle on the date of accident. The learned counsel also submitted that the claim form was signed by Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur and was also submitted by him. However, Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur did not complete the formalities for processing the claim, hence the claim was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 27.06.2006. The learned counsel also submitted that the Surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 27,425/- on repair basis. Thus, the District Forum has failed to consider the legal as well as factual error of the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel pressed into service a decision dated 18.09.2012 rendered by this Commission in "First Appeal No. 09 of 2009; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sh. Arvind Kumar and Anr.".
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. He also submitted that the District Forum has not made any error in its judgment, either legal or factual, and has rightly allowed the consumer complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel pressed into service the following decisions:-
(1) This Commission's decision dated 29.04.2011 in First Appeal No. 339 of 2007, New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. vs. Brijveer Singh; II (2011) CPJ 466. (2) Delhi State Commission's decision dated 10.01.2008 in First Appeal No. 07/736, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Appliance Technologies India Limited; II (2008) CPJ
195.
(3) Hon'ble National Commission's decision dated
30.05.2005 in Revision Petition No. 2882/2003,
Banowarilal Agarwalla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC).
6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1. The vehicle in question was sold by Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur to Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht / respondent No. 1 on 4 10.09.2004 and the accident took place on 08.03.2005 and till then, the transferee / respondent No. 1 could not get the vehicle transferred to his name. This Commission in the case of "Brijveer Singh" (supra) has observed that the word "owner" of the vehicle means "a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered". Thus, on the date of accident, i.e. 08.03.2005, Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur was the "de jure" owner of the vehicle. The Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of "United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. V.C. Deen Dayal & Anr.; III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC)", has also observed that-
"in order to avail the benefit under the policy, there has to be a contract between the parties and de facto possession of the vehicle will not confer any legal right on respondent / complainant No. 2 to avail the benefit under the policy."
7. Following this above mentioned observation made by the Hon'ble National Commission, this Commission had delivered its decision in the case of "Sh. Arvind Kumar & Anr." (supra), justifying the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company.
8. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
- complainant cannot help the complainant, because in the case of "Banowari Lal Agrawalla" (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that the vehicle was transferred in favour of the complainant on 06.07.1995, but the complainant had not got the insurance policy transferred in his name. Therefore, the Hon'ble National Commission held that "the petitioner has got no locus to file this complaint as he was not the insured". In the instant case, not to say of transfer of policy, even the vehicle was not transferred to the complainant's name and, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that respondent No. 1 has got no locus to file the consumer complaint.
9. If we go through this Commission's judgment in the case of "Brijveer Singh" (supra), we find that our views on such consumer 5 disputes are consistent with the above cited decisions. The case of "Brijveer Singh" was a case of theft. The registered owner of the vehicle Sh. Sanjay had duly signed the sale letter (Form No. 29) on 28.08.2004 and had handed over all the documents including insurance policy to Sh. Brijveer Singh-purchaser. It was Saturday on 28.08.2004. Before the transferee could get the vehicle transferred on 30.08.2004, the same was stolen by some unknown person. This Commission's observation in this case was similar as made by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "V.C. Deen Dayal" (supra) and as also made by this Commission in the case of "Arvind Kumar & Anr." (supra). But in this case, the incident of theft had taken place within two days of vehicle's sale and we observed that the insurance company was avoiding its liability on the ground that the registered owner, Sh. Sanjay had sold it to Sh. Brijveer Singh and Sh. Brijveer Singh had no privity of contract with the insurance company, so we held that "the claim should have been settled in favour of the owner of the vehicle Sh. Sanjay, because it was he who had submitted it first. However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that Sh. Sanjay had sold the vehicle to Sh. Brijveer Singh/complainant and, as such, the complainant being beneficiary, can also submit the claim. It would be highly unjustified on the part of Insurance Company to repudiate the claim also on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant and hence the complainant was not its consumer".
10. We also went through the judgment of Delhi State Commission in the case of "Appliance Technologies India Ltd." (supra), but the facts of this case are quite different from the instant case and we are of the opinion that the observations made by Delhi State Commission in this case cannot enlighten us in taking a decision in the instant case. So we rely on this Commission's decisions in the case of "Arvind Kumar & Anr." and "Brijveer Singh" and Hon'ble National Commission's decision in the case of "Banowarilal Agrawalla".
611. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 - complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and the insurance policy was also continuing in the name of Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur, the registered owner of the vehicle. Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur had submitted the claim form (Paper Nos. 35 to 38) with the insurance company.
12. After receiving the Surveyor's report, Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur had also given his consent for Rs. 21,860/- against his claim (Paper No. 39). This consent letter is undated and consent has been received for an amount less than the loss assessed by the Surveyor. Therefore, this document (consent letter) appears to be doubtful. Even this amount was not paid to the registered owner of the vehicle. The written statement filed by the appellant before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 17 & 18) reveals that the appellant had repudiated the claim on 27.09.2006, on the ground that the registered owner could not submit the final report of the police, as accepted by the Court. However, the record is silent, as to why the registered owner did not file the consumer complaint before the District Forum and, instead, Sh. Mahabir Singh, de facto owner of the vehicle, filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum. So far as the consumer complaint filed by Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht - respondent No. 1 / complainant is concerned, the repudiation of the claim by the appellant cannot be said unjustified in view of the observations made by this Commission in the cases of "Brijveer Singh" and "Arvind Kumar" and also in view of the decisions rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of "V.C. Deen Dayal" and "Banowari Lal Agrawalla". Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Chamoli is liable to be set aside. However, following the view taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "Banowari Lal Agarwalla"
and also because of the dubitation of the consent letter obtained by the appellant, we are also of the view that technicality should not come in the way of insurance company in honouring its part of contract. The Surveyor deputed by the appellant has not doubted the genuineness of the accident and he has also assessed the loss, therefore, in the facts and circumstances 7 of the case, we direct that Sh. Ramesh Chand Gaur, the registered owner of the vehicle, may file a consumer complaint, if he so wishes, and the time spent before the Consumer Fora in pursuing the consumer complaint No. 01 of 2008 shall have to be condoned, as it appears that the said consumer complaint was filed on account of some wrong advice.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 07.07.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the original owner of the vehicle will be at liberty to file a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum, as per the observations made by us in the judgment.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)