National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Gopal Krishan Sharma on 17 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4927 OF 2012 With I.A. No.01 of 2012 (For Stay) (From the order dated 1.10.2012 in Appeal No.163/2012 of the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through the Regional manager, DRO-1, Kanchenjunga Building, 8th Floor, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001. Petitioner Versus 1. Gopal Krishan Sharma S/o Shri D.R. Sharma, First Address: House No.202/1, Bank Colony, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh Second Address: H. No.3401/1, Sector-45-D, Chandigarh 2. HDFC Bank Limited Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh .Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on : 17th May, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Petitioner/Opposite party No.1 being aggrieved by order dated 1.10.2012, passed by. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short, State Commission) has filed this revision petition.
2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased Indigo vehicle, bearing registration No.CH-04-C-4536 from Smt. Prema Mehta. After purchase, the car was transferred in his name by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. The car was got insured by the transferor in her name, before the sale thereof. After the car was transferred in the name of respondent no.1, he approached petitioner on 4.8.2009 for transfer of the insurance policy, in his name but same was not done. On 7.8.2009, respondent no.1 again approached petitioner but dealing official told him to submit a cheque of Rs.680/- on account of transfer fee. It was stated that on 10.8.2009 respondent no.1 through UPC sent the application for transfer of insurance policy alongwith necessary documents and cheque No.278974 dated 7.8.2009 amounting to Rs.680/- to the petitioner but no reply was received.
3. It is further stated that on the night intervening 16/17.3.2010, vehicle in question was stolen from outside his house and said incident was intimated to the Police on 17.3.2010. Accordingly, FIR No.89 dated 20.3.2010 was registered. Thereafter, respondent no.1 intimated the Registering and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh and petitioner as well as respondent no.2, regarding theft of the vehicle. Petitioner deputed an investigator, who visited place of the respondent no.1 and was provided all the necessary papers alongwith untraced intimation dated 25.5.2010. It was further stated that petitioner vide letter dated 14.7.2010 raised objection that Policy had not been transferred in the name of respondent no.1, within 14 days of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The said letter was replied by respondent no1, vide letter dated 26.7.2010. It was further stated that vide letter dated 8.10.2010, petitioner repudiated the claim of respondent no.1 on the ground that he was not insured of the vehicle as per the Insurance Companys record on the date of theft. It was further stated that as per provisions of law, respondent no.1 informed the petitioner within 14 days of the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle with request that insurance policy, in the name of the earlier owner, be transferred in his name but petitioner did not act upon his request. The repudiation of the claim of respondent no.1 by the Petitioner, being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside. It was further stated that aforesaid acts of petitioner amounted to deficiency in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When grievance of respondent no.1 was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act) was filed praying to quash the impugned letter dated 8.10.2010; pay Rs.4,03,940/- being the Insured Declared Value of the stolen value; pay a sum of Rs.one lac on account of travelling expenses incurred by respondent no.1 in connection with his job; pay Rs.one lac as compensation on account of indulgence into unfair trade practice, and rendering deficient service; and pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses
4. Petitioner in its written version, stated that as per their record Smt. Prema Mehta w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mehta was the owner of vehicle No.CH-04-C-4536 and she had got insured the same with them for the period from 28.4.2009 to 27.4.2010. It was further stated that neither respondent no.1 nor Smt. Prema Mehta ever applied for transfer of the insurance policy in the name of respondent no.1, nor they received a cheque of Rs.680/- on account of transfer fee, nor they received any letter dated 10.8.2009 through UPC, alongwith documents, as alleged in the complaint. It was further stated that intimation through UPC was not a recognized mode of communication in the legal system. It was further stated that petitioner received letter dated 30.6.2010 from respondent no.1. It was further stated that original owner Smt. Prema Mehta never approached petitioner for setting her claim. It was further stated that on receipt of letter from respondent no.1, petitioner sent him a registered letter that as per their record, the Insurance Policy stood in the name of Mrs. Prema Mehta on the date of alleged theft and as such, he was not entitled to any claim, the vehicle being not insured in his name. It was denied that petitioner was deficient in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. Respondent no.2, in its written version stated that respondent no.1 had taken a loan of Rs.2,56,320 from it. It was further stated that vehicle was hypothecated in its favour. It was further stated that respondent no.1 has paid regular instalments of Rs.6,580/- P.M. to respondent no.2. It was denied that there was any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of respondent no.2, or it indulged into unfair trade practice.
6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh -1, (for short District Forum) vide order dated 3.4.2012, allowed the complaint and ordered as under;-
As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,03,940/- to the complainant being the insured value of the vehicle after deducting the depreciation value, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by Opposite parties No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.9.2011 till its realization besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide impugned order.
8. Hence, this revision petition.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
10. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.1 is not a consumer as there was no privity of contract between him and the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent no.1 never approached petitioner for transferring the insurance policy of the vehicle neither petitioner received any cheque on account of transfer fee nor the alleged letter dated 10.8.2009 sent by UPC.
Moreover, the service under UPC is not in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, State Commission has wrongly held that respondent no.1 has sent an application for transfer by UPC. In support, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on following judgments;
i) State of Maharashtra versus Rashid B. Mulani, Appeal (Cr.) 557 of 1999 and
ii) M/s. Naresh Kumar Sandeshkumar & Company versus United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(Revision Petition No.4063 of 2007 decided on 29th March, 2012 by this Commission).
11. The State Commission while dismissing appeal in its impugned order observed;
12. Admittedly, the original owner of the vehicle was Smt. Prema Mehta. There is also, no dispute about the factum that the vehicle in question was insured, in her name for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,03,940/- for the period from 28.4.2009 to 27.4.2010. The question arises as to when the vehicle was purchased and transferred, in the name of the complainant, by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. Annexure C9 is the letter, which was written by the Deputy Manager, Service Hub, Regional Office, Chandigarh, to the complainant vide this letter, he was intimated that Mr. Anurag Midha, their investigator investigated the case and submitted his report, to the effect, that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in his name (complainant) on 29.7.2009, whereas the policy was in the name of Mrs. Prema Mehta, as on the date of alleged theft. Thus, from the letter annexure C9, which was written by opposite parties no.1 & 2 to the complainant, it was proved that the vehicle, in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 29.7.2009. It means that on the date of accident the vehicle had already been transferred in the name of the complainant and he was the registered owner thereof. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The submission of the counsel for the appellant in this regard, being devoid of any merit, must fail, and stands rejected.
13. The next question, that arise for consideration, is as to whether intimation within 14 days from the date of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in the name of complainant was given by him to opposite parties no.1 & 2, with the request that the insurance policy be transferred in the name or not. The complainant in his complaint stated that immediately on transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in his name, he met the officials of opposite parties no.1 & 2 on two occasions but they put him off on one pretext or the other. At page 55 of the District Forum file, there is a copy of the letter dated 9.8.2009, vide which request for transfer of insurance policy in the name of the complainant in respect of vehicle No.CH04C4356 was made by him (complainant). Alongwith this letter the relevant documents and a cheque in the sum of Rs.680/- were also attached. This letter was sent through UPC, copy whereof is Annexure C3. The stamp of the Post Office, affixed on the photocopy of the UPC receipt bears the date 10.8.2009. The UPC receipt was issued by the officials of the Post Office, in due discharge of their official duties. The official acts, done by the public servants, in the due discharge of their officials duties, carry a presumption of correctness, until proved to the contrary. In the face of the letter, referred to above, sent through the UPC Annexure C3, it was for opposite parties no.1 & 2 to produce evidence, to rebut the same. However, no evidence, in this regard, was led by opposite parties no.1 & 2. It may be stated here that intimation through UPC is one of the legality recognized mode of communication. Under these circumstances, authenticity of the letter at page 55, which was sent through UPC, copy whereof is Annexed C3 could not be doubted.
12. Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent no.1 has sent an application alongwith cheque for transfer of insurance policy to the petitioner by UPC, but petitioners own surveyor in its report has admitted that respondent no.1 has sent letter dated 10.8.2009. It would be pertinent to point out that Mr. Anurag Midha, Investigator who investigated the matter was appointed by the petitioner company itself. This surveyor in its investigation report with regard to the theft claim of the vehicle in question has categorically stated that respondent no.1 has sent two letters through UPC for transfer of insurance policy in his name. His report is dated 30.5.2012. The relevant observation and opinion of the investigator states;
6. It is important to mention here that Sh.
Gopal Krishan Sharma also sent two letters through U.P.C. for transfer of Insurance Policy in his name. On perusing the letters sent by Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma it has come out that the first letter was sent by him on 10.08.09 and further on 24.08.09.
Opinion:-
In view of the facts stated above and circumstantial evidence available, I am of the opinion that vehicle Tata Indigo car bearing No.CH04c4536 is registered in the name of Sh.Gopal Krishan Sharma but insurance policy is still in the name of Mrs. Prem Mehta, (Previous owner). It was stolen on the intervening night of 16/17/03.2010 from the ground near H. No.202/1, Bank Colony, Pipliwala town, Manimajra, Chandigarh and not recovered yet.
13. Since, petitioners investigator himself admits that respondent no.1 has sent two letters through UPC for transfer of insurance policy in his name, then we fail to understand as to how petitioner has taken this plea, that they have not received any letter with regard to transfer of insurance policy from respondent no.1.
14. The judgments cited by learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case as respondent no.1s letter dated 10.8.2009 for transfer of insurance policy was duly received by the petitioner.
15. Under section 21 (b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
16. There is nothing on record to show that impugned order passed by State Commission is erroneous, or there is any illegality in the impugned order. Present petition being without any legal basis and being meritless, is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
17. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within eight weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
18. List for compliance on 19.7.2013.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER Sg/