National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gawar Construction Company, Hisar vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 30 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3160 OF 2013 With I.A. No.5550 of 2013 (For condonation of delay) (From order dated 21.5.2013 in First Appeal No.189/2013 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula,) Gawar Construction Company, Hisar Through its Managing Director Sh. Rajender Singh Son of Sh. Chhabi Dass, Resident of House No.4 Saket Coony Hisar Haryana ....Petitioner Versus 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 18, Sirsa Road, Opposite Main Gurudwara, Hisar, Through its Divisional Manager 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Registered and Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai Through its Company Secretary ....Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate Pronounced on: 30th January, 2015 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Delay of 7 days is condoned.
2. Petitioner/Complainant, has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, Act), against order dated 21.5.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, State Commission) in F.A. No.189/2013.
3. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner is owner of one JCB Machine which was insured with Respondents/Opposite Parties with policy valid from 13.1.2010 to 12.1.2011. It is stated that the said machine was damaged on 13.4.2010 in the accident. Raj Kumar Singal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the respondent, estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,29,037/-. Despite completion of all formalities by the petitioner, respondents have repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 12.11.2010 on the ground that petitioner has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question.
Hence, complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to pay claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, District Forum).
4 Respondents contested the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that Shri Randhir Singh lodged the claim regarding the alleged accident regarding policy issued in the name of petitioner company. The claim was repudiated on the ground, that Shri Randhir Singh at the material time of accident has no insurable interest. The registration of vehicle in question at the time of accident, was in the name of petitioner. However, the same was in process of transfer in the name of Sh. Randhir Singh and NOC was issued in the name of Sh. Randhir Singh for purpose of transfer of registration of the vehicle in question and later on the same was cancelled by their own. The vehicle was never transferred in the name of Sh. Randhir Singh, whereas claim has been lodged by him.
5. District Forum, vide order dated 29.1.2013 partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay claim of Rs.1,36,503.45p. with interest @7% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Further, the petitioner was directed to hand over the salvage to the respondents. In case, petitioner is not in a position to hand over the salvage, in that eventuality respondents may deduct an amount of Rs.6,000/- from amount assessed by the surveyor.
6. Being aggrieved, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order accepted the same and dismissed the complaint.
7. Hence, present revision petition.
8. I have heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
9. It has been submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner, that there was nothing on record before the State Commission to infer, that vehicle had been sold by the petitioner. Mere issuance of NOC by the Registering Authority does not complete any transaction of sale. A transaction of sale is completed only upon transfer of registration of vehicle in the name of a transferee. Mere issuance of NOC cannot be equated with the transfer of vehicle, when possession of the vehicle as well as title of the vehicle is with the petitioner. The State Commission gravely erred in deciding the appeal relying upon the NOC, which can in no term be said to be complete transfer of ownership or registration from the petitioner to the transferee.
10. The State Commission in its impugned order observed;
We do not find force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-complainant. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured in the name of the complainant and vehicle was sold by the complainant to one Randhir Singh prior to the date of accident, which took place on 13.4.2010. The complainant had already applied for NOC which was issued by the Registering Authority, Hisar to the Secretary R.T.A. Sirsa on 02.04.2010. It has also come on the record that the H.P.A. of the vehicle in favour of H.D.F.C. Bank was also got cancelled by issuance of N.O.C. Meaning thereby, the vehicle had already been sold by the complainant to Randhir Singh prior to the date of accident. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is established that after having realized that the claim for damage would not be admissible due to sale of vehicle without transferring the insurance policy, the complainant by playing a clever device got the NOC cancelled just to avoid repudiation of claim with respect to the damage of vehicle. Since the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Randhir Singh prior to the date of accident and NOC was issued, the sale of the vehicle was complete as per the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and therefore, the insurable interest qua the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant ceased the fact that Randhir Singh lodged claim with OP, certainly indicating that vehicle had already been sold by complainant to Randhir Singh and thus Randhir Singh in the capacity of owner lodged the claim with the opposite party. Otherwise, there was no occasion for Randhir Singh to lodge the claim, he being third party of contract of insurance. Thus the repudiation of complainants claim by the OP vide letter dated 12.11.2010 cannot be termed as a deficiency in service. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case in its true perspective, hence the impugned order cannot sustain.
11. Accordingly, the case of petitioner is, that its claim was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that claim in respect of policy in question was lodged by one Shri Randhir Singh, who had no insurable interest.
12. Petitioner in its complaint itself has stated, that at the time of accident the vehicle was under process of transferring in favour of Shri Randhir Singh, in whose favour the NOC was got issued for the purpose of transfer, but the vehicle was not transferred and NOC was got cancelled.
In this regard, petitioner has made following assertions in Para no.5 of the complaint;
That the above said vehicle was not transferred in the name of Randhir Singh in whose favour the NOC was got issued for the purpose of transfer, hence there was no requirement or opportunity of getting the insurance cover/policy transferred in his name as such an eventuality was premature until and unless transfer of registration. The complainant bonafidely disclosed the entire information to the respondent company. The complainant as well as said Randhir Singh co-operated and signed in blind faith upon the officials of respondent company on each and every document which were asked for their signatures. The complainant also got the NOC cancelled and deposited back as per desire and instruction of official of the respondent company.
13. It is an admitted fact that respondents have repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that claim was filed by one Shri Randhir Singh, who had no insurable interest. Under these circumstances, Randhir Singh was a necessary party in this case, who could have thrown light on the entire episode with regard to transfer/issuance of NOC and cancellation of the same. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, it did not implead him as a party. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that Shri Randhir Singh was examined by the petitioner as a witness in support of its case.
14. Assuming for the arguments sake that the vehicle in question was not sold to Shri Randhir Singh, then why as per petitioners case, this Randhir Singh alongwith petitioner signed each and every document.
Further, there is nothing on record to show, that petitioner ever made any representation against the repudiation letter or filed any objections against the same. The silence on the part of the petitioner goes on to show, that it was Shri Randhir Singh alone who had submitted the insurance claim.
15. Since, Randhir Singh had no insurable interest in this case, the State Commission rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the appeal of the respondent.
The present revision petition being frivolous one, is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
16. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today.
17. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
18. List on 13.3.2015 for compliance.
(V.B. GUPTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sg.