State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Makhan Singh vs 1. The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 5 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 327 of 2013 Date of Institution : 30.07.2013 Date of Decision : 05.08.2013 Makhan Singh s/o Sh.Surjan Singh, resident of House No.1761A, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh (previously residing at H.No.1755A, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh) Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 1100002, through its Managing Director/CEO. 2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 109-111. Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its General Manager/Branch Manager. 3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Quite Office:- 15, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Anish Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.07.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Bullet Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.CH-03Z-0245, from Sh. Dilver Singh. The said motorcycle, was got insured from the Opposite Parties, vide Policy Annexure C-1, in the name of Sh. Dilver Singh, valid for the period from 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2012, for the insured declared value, to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. After the transfer of ownership, in the name of complainant, he visited Opposite Party No.3, for transfer of the insurance cover, in his name, but he was told to bring consent letter, from the transferor namely Sh. Dilver Singh. However, in the meanwhile, on 17.04.2011, the said motorcycle was stolen, from the parking area, near stairs of the house of the complainant. The complainant tried to locate the said motorcycle, but he could not succeed. The theft of the said motorcycle was reported to the Police, which finally registered F.I.R. No.117 dated 02.05.2011, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Opposite Parties were also informed, about the theft of motorcycle, telephonically. The Police could not trace the said motorcycle, and, finally submitted the untraced report, in respect of the same, which was also accepted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, District Courts, Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.11.2011. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties, but the same was repudiated by them, vide letter dated 02.09.2011 Annexure C-2.
3. Legal notice dated 19.01.2012, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, to settle the claim of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the claim amount, to the tune of Rs.40,000/- i.e. the insured declared value of the motorcycle, in question, alongwith interest @12% P.A., till realization; compensation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, stated that the Insurance Policy was obtained by Sh.Dilver Singh, who sold the insured vehicle to the complainant. It was further stated that since the complainant did not get the insurance cover transferred, in his name, though the vehicle was got transferred, by him, in his favour, in February, 2011, there was no privity of contract between him and the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that, on the date of incident of theft, the insurance cover of the motorcycle, in question, was still in the name of Sh. Dilver Singh, the original owner, and, as such, the complainant had no insurable interest, in the same. It was further stated that the complainant, intimated the Police, with regard to the theft of the motorcycle, in question, on 02.05.2011, and the Opposite Parties on 02.06.2011, i.e. after much delay. It was further stated that Sh.Jagjit Singh Sethi, Investigator, appointed by the Opposite Parties, also found that, on the date of incident, the Insurance Policy stood in the name of Sh.Dilver Singh, previous owner of the motorcycle, in question, which had not been got transferred by the complainant, in his name. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was legally and validly, repudiated vide letter dated 22.09.2011 Annexure R-5. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that despite taking all the reasonable steps, by the complainant, after the theft of his motorcycle, his genuine claim was illegally and arbitrarily repudiated by the Opposite Parties, on the ground, that he had no insurable interest, in the same (motorcycle). He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The only question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant had insurable interest, in the motorcycle, in question, at the time of incident of theft or not. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No.CH-03Z-0245, from Sh. Dilver Singh, which the latter got insured from the Opposite Parties, vide Policy Ann.C-1, valid from 02.02.2011 to 01.02.2012, for the insured declared value, to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. It is also not disputed that on 17.04.2011, the said motorcycle was stolen, from the parking area, near the stairs, of the house of the complainant. It is also not disputed, that at the time of theft of the said motorcycle, the Insurance Policy had not been transferred, in favour of the complainant, and was still in the name of the previous owner namely Sh. Dilver Singh. Earlier GR-10, issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, was in vogue from 01.04.1990 to 30.06.2002. According to GR-10, on transfer of vehicle, the benefits under the Policy, in force, on the date of transfer were to automatically accrue to the new owner. However GR-10 was replaced by GR-17 w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and the same reads as under:-
On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only Policy or under a Package Policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer, The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
11. Since, the vehicle had been purchased by the complainant, from Sh. Dilver Singh, as admitted by him, after coming into force of GR-17, the provisions thereof would be applicable, to the present case. According to GR-17, on transfer of ownership, transferee is required to apply within 14 days, from the date of transfer, in writing, under recorded delivery to the insurer, which had insured the vehicle, with the details of registration of vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and the date and number of the Policy, so that the insurer may make necessary changes, in the record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance. Unless, the aforesaid procedure of transfer of vehicle, is followed, and complied with, the transferee has no insurable interest. It would be seen that on receipt of information, from the transferee the Insurance Company is required to make changes, in its record, and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance.
12. In the present case, admittedly, as pointed out earlier, the transferee, though got the vehicle transferred, in his name, in the month of February 2011, yet, he did inform the Insurance Company, within 14 days, regarding such transfer. Since, the complainant had not intimated the Insurance Company, within 14 days, from the date of transfer of registration certificate, in his name, the Insurance Policy was not transferred, in his name. Thus, on the date of theft of Motorcycle, the complainant had no insurable interest, in the same. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamal Tours and Travels, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shri Divya Prashad, I(2011) CPJ 22 (NC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Dalip Kumar, IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC). The Opposite Parties, thus, legally and validly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The District Forum was also right in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.
13. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
August 5, 2013_ Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg