State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs 1. Dr. Sandeep Puri on 21 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 25 of 2013 Date of Institution : 25.01.2013 Date of Decision : 21/03/2013 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., S.C.O 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager. Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s 1. Dr. Sandeep Puri s/o Mangat Ram Puri, R/o House No.3051, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. ..respondent no.1/complainant No.1. 2. Ram Lal s/o Kanahya Lal, R/o House No.224/2, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. ..respondent no.2/complainant No.2. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.
Saurabh Bindra, Advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants, and directed the Opposite Party, as under:-
i) To pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft till realization.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of theft till its realization to the complainants.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, Ram Lal, complainant no.2, on 18.04.2011, purchased one Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.CH-04-C-8156, from Dr. Sandeep Puri-complainant no.1. The possession of car was handed over to complainant No.2, by complainant No.1, on 26.04.2011, after receipt of full consideration amount. The car, in question, was got insured by complainant no.1, from the Opposite Party, vide policy No.231300/31/2011/16257, valid for the period from 28.02.2011 to 27.02.2012. An agent of the Opposite Party told complainant No.1, that the Insurance Policy, could be transferred, in favour of complainant No.2, only when the registration certificate was issued, in his (complainant No.2) favour. He, however, advised him to intimate the Opposite Party, about the sale of the car, immediately.
3. It was stated that complainant no.2, visited the office of the Opposite Party, on 28.04.2011, and intimated it, about the sale of vehicle, and submitted a letter to it, but it refused to accept the same and advised him, that the Insurance Policy of the vehicle, in question, could be transferred, in his name, only when the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was transferred, in his favour, as per the guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. On 29.04.2011, complainant No.1 received No Due Certificate, from the State Bank of Patiala, as he had availed of loan for the vehicle, in question, and copy of the same was delivered to complainant No.2, on 01.05.2011. Complainant No.2, on 13.06.2011, after completing all the formalities, for the transfer of car, applied to the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, for transfer of the same (vehicle), in his name. The Registering and Licensing Authority, advised complainant No.2, to collect the Registration Certificate, on 13.07.2011, i.e. after one month of the submission of papers, as per its usual practice. Complainant No.2 visited the office of the Registering and Licensing Authority Chandigarh, for collecting the Registration Certificate, on 13.07.2011, but he was told that the same had not been prepared, and the next date for collection of the same, was given as 09.09.2011.
4. It was further stated that, on 08.07.2011 at around 10.30 P.M., complainant no.2, parked his vehicle outside his house, after properly locking it. He came, down from his house, for going to the Vegetable Market, in connection with his business of fruits and vegetables, in the morning at 4.00 A.M., and found that his vehicle was missing, from the place of parking. He immediately informed the Police, on phone no.100 and also lodged FIR No.166, dated 09.07.2011, at Police Station, Sector-19, Chandigarh. Complainant no.2, also immediately informed the Opposite Party, about the theft of vehicle, whereupon, it appointed the Royal Associates, Investigation and Detective Agency, to investigate the matter. It was further stated that complainant no.2, was shocked to receive a letter, from the Opposite Party, on 16.11.2011, to explain the position that the registration of the vehicle, was transferred, in his name, on 13.06.2011, but the insurance of the vehicle was still in the name of complainant No.1. Complainant No.2, vide his reply dated 26.11.2011, clarified that he applied for the transfer of vehicle, in question, on 13.06.2011, but the Registration Certificate had not been prepared, and next date for collection of the same, was given as 09.09.2011, by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. It was further stated that since the complainant had not received the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, till 09.09.2011, it was not possible for him, to get the Insurance Policy transferred, in his name, as per the guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority.
5. It was further stated that complainant no.2, was further shocked to receive another letter dated 03.12.2011 - Annexure-G, whereby, the Opposite Party, repudiated his claim, on the ground, that he did not have insurable interest in the vehicle, at the time of theft of the same, as the Insurance Policy had not been transferred, in his name, on the date of loss. It was further stated that the repudiation of claim, aforesaid, made by the Opposite Party, was completely, illegal and arbitrary. The Opposite Party was many a time, asked to make payment of Rs.2,60,000/-, the Insured Declared Value of the car, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, 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 Party, to pay Rs.2,60,000/-, the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle, alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the date of theft, till realization; compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that complainant no.2 was not a consumer as he had no insurable interest, qua the vehicle, in question, at the time of theft. It was stated that complainant no.2 had admittedly purchased the said vehicle, from complainant no.1, on 18.04.2011, and he applied for the transfer of Registration of the same, in his favour, with the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh, on 13.06.2011, which was transferred, in his name, on the same day. It was further stated that the said vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 08-09/07/2011. It was further stated that the Insurance Policy continued to be in the name of complainant no.1-Dr. Sandeep Puri. Complainant no.2 informed the Opposite Party, about the incident of theft, on 11.07.2011. It was further stated that, as per GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff, complainant no.2, had to apply within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the registration of the said vehicle, in his name, for endorsing the Insurance Policy of the same, in his name, but he slept over the matter. It was further stated that since, neither complainant no.1, had insurable interest, in the car, at the time of commission of theft of the same, as he had sold the same to complainant no.2, nor the latter had any insurable interest, qua the same, as he had not applied for transfer of the Insurance Policy, in his favour, within 14 days, from the date of recorded delivery, nor applied for transfer of registration, within 30 days, from the date of purchase of the same, according to Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It was further stated that the repudiation of claim of the complainants, was, thus, legal and valid. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, submitted that neither complainant no.1, the transferor of the vehicle, within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle, in favour of complainant no.2, reported the fact of transfer of the same (vehicle), in such form and with such documents, to the Registering Authority nor the transferee (i.e. complainant no.2), within 30 days, of the transfer of vehicle, reported to the Registering Authority, within whose Jurisdiction, he had the residence or place of business. He further submitted that, thus, there was violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that even complainant no.2, did not intimate, within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in his favour, by complainant no.1, to the Insurance Company, for the transfer of Policy, in his favour, according to the provisions of G.R. 17 of India Motor Tariff. He further submitted that, as such, neither complainant no.1 nor complainant no.2 had insurable interest, in the vehicle, at the time of theft of the same. He further submitted that, thus, the Opposite Party legally and validly, repudiated the claim, submitted by the complainants. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/complainants, submitted that respondent no.2, transferee of the vehicle, could apply for transfer of the Insurance Policy, in his name only, within 14 days, after the Registration Certificate of the same had been transferred, in his favour. He further submitted that since the Registration Certificate was transferred, in the name of respondent no.2 on 09.09.2011, and, in the mean time, the vehicle was stolen, his claim could not be repudiated, on the ground, that he had no insurable interest, in the same. He further submitted that he did not commit any violation of the provisions of GR 17 of India Motor Tariff and Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that the repudiation of claim of the complainants was illegal and invalid. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in accepting the complaint.
13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the Parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that Dr. Sandeep Puri, Complainant no.1 was the owner of vehicle no. CH-04-C-8156. It was admitted, in the complaint, that the said car was sold by complainant no.1, to complainant no.2, on 18.04.2011, and possession of the same was handed over to him (complainant no.2), on 26.04.2011, on receipt of full consideration amount. It was also admitted, in the complaint itself, that complainant no.2, after the purchase of vehicle, applied for the transfer of Registration Certificate, in his favour, on 13.06.2011. According to Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it was the duty of the transferor, to intimate with regard to the transfer of vehicle, in favour of the transferee, within 14 days, to the Registering and Licensing Authority. Similarly, according to Section 50 (1)(b), of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the transferee was required to report the transfer of vehicle, to the Registering and Licensing Authority, within 30 days, from the date of transfer. Both the complainants are the residents of Chandigarh. In the instant case, it was only on 13.06.2011, that complainant no.2, moved an application before the Registering Authority, that the vehicle had been transferred, in his favour, by complainant no. 1 and the Registration Certificate be transferred, in his name. The sale was completed on 26.04.2011. There is nothing, on the record, that complainant no.1, informed the Registering Authority, regarding the transfer of vehicle, in favour of complainant no.2, within 14 days of its transfer. Since, neither complainant no.1, intimated the Registering Authority, regarding the transfer of vehicle, in favour of complainant no.2, within 14 days, of its transfer, nor complainant no.2, intimated the Registering Authority, for transfer of the vehicle, in his name, within 30 days, from the date of purchase of the same, they violated the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
14. Since complainant no.1 had already sold the vehicle, in favour of complainant no.2, before the incident of theft, he certainly had no insurable interest, in the same. 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.
15. Since, the vehicle had been purchased by Ram Lal, complainant no.2, from Dr. Sandeep Puri, complainant no.1, as admitted, in the complaint, 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 the transfer of vehicle, is followed, and complied with, the transferee has no insurable interest. It is only on receipt of information, from the transferee that the Insurance Company is required to make changes, in its record, and issue a fresh Certificate of Insurance.
16. In the present case, admittedly, as pointed out earlier, the transferee i.e. Ram Lal, neither got the vehicle transferred, in his name, within the stipulated period, as required under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, nor did inform the Insurance Company, regarding such transfer. As stated above, complainant no.1, after selling the vehicle, in favour of Ram Lal, complainant no.2, before the date of incident of theft, after receipt of consideration, had no insurable interest, whatsoever, in the same. Since, complainant no.2, had not intimated the Insurance Company, that he had purchased the vehicle, and the Policy be endorsed, in his favour, within 14 days, from the date of such transfer, nor he applied to the Registering Authority, for transfer of Registration Certificate, in his favour, within 30 days, from the date of purchase of the vehicle, he had also no insurable interest, whatsoever, in the same. In this view of the matter, the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any amount, to any of the complainants, on account of the theft of vehicle. 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 District Forum, however, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, and, thus, fell into a grave error, in holding, that the complainants were entitled to the amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, on account of theft of the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim of the complainants was legal and valid. Thus, there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, nor indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Party.
The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being against the provisions of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff, Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, being illegal deserve to be set aside.
17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.
18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum, being not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, is illegal and perverse, warranting the interference of this Commission, and, the same is liable to be set aside.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 03.01.2013, of the District Forum, is set aside. The complaint shall stand dismissed.
20. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
21.03.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg