State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Neelam Rani on 25 July, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009
Date of institution: 9.11.2009
Date of decision : 25.7.2013
National Insurance Company Ltd., Khochhar Market, Ludhiana through its
Manager.
Through its authorized person, office of National Insurance Company Ltd.,
CHRo-1, SCO 332-334, Sector 34A, Chandigarh
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Neelam Rani W/o Inderjit Singh
2. Inderjit Singh S/o Amritsaria Ram
Both residents of House No. 7278, New Moti Nagar, Gali No. 6,
Ludhiana.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 5.10.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party- National Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 5.10.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the respondents/complainants (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was allowed by the District Forum.
First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that son of the respondents deceased Rakesh Kumar purchased Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No. PB-08-AN-8339 from Ranjit Singh, original owner of the car, which was duly transferred in the name of their son Rakesh Kumar. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant for the period of 24.9.2007 till 23.9.2008 in the name of the original owner. The said car met with an accident on 25.4.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. in the area of Jhugiana Chowk, Ludhiana and their son Rakesh Kumar died in the accident, who was driving the Zen car. FIR No. 110 dated 26.4.2008 under Section 304-A, 427 IPC was registered at P.S. Focal Point, Ludhiana. The respondents lodged the claim with the appellant on 20.8.2008 and submitted all the documents as well as estimate of Rs. 2,96,568/- prepared by M/s Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for the repair of the car, which was badly damaged in the accident with one unknown truck trolla. The claim of the respondents was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2008 on the ground that deceased was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle as the policy was not got transferred by the deceased in his name. The complaint was filed by the respondents with the prayer that the appellant may be directed to pay Rs. 3 lacs as total loss and cost alongwith interest to the respondents.
3. Upon notice, reply to the complaint was filed by the appellant by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was barred by Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum was not competent to decide the complaint as District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as there was no First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 3 deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. It was alleged that on receipt of the intimation and claim Sh. R.S. Walia, Investigator was appointed and as per the report of the Investigator the son of the respondents purchased the car from Ranjeet Singh s/o Hazara Singh and the same got transferred by deceased Rakesh Kumar in his name on 13.3.2008 but no intimation was given to the appellant or requisite fee for the transfer of the policy was deposited by deceased Rakesh Kumar with the appellant. The car met with an accident on 25.4.2008 and till the date of the accident the policy was in the name of original owner of the car in dispute. As such, deceased Rakesh Kumar was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in dispute. The claim of the respondents was rightly repudiated. In reply to the other paras of the complaint, same stand was reiterated and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The District Forum after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to settle the insurance claim of the insured car of deceased Rakesh Kumar son of the respondents in terms of insurance policy Ex. R-13 within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order and also pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is based on conjecture and surmises as well as based on assumptions and presumptions. The order of the District First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 4 Forum is against the evidence as well as settled law, as such, the same is liable to be set-aside.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
7. There is no dispute between the parties that the car was purchased by deceased Rakesh Kumar i.e. son of the respondents from Ranjeet Singh s/o Hazara Singh and registration of the same was transferred in his name.
8. There is also no dispute that the vehicle was insured with the appellant for the period of 24.9.2007 to 23.9.2008 by Ranjeet Singh original owner of the car. There is also no dispute that the zen car in dispute met with an accident on 25.4.2008 and Rakesh Kumar son of the respondents expired on 26.4.2008 but till accident, the insurance policy was in the name of Ranjeet Singh s/o Hazara Singh. Sh. Rakesh Kumar neither intimated the appellant nor deposited the requisite fee for the transfer of the policy in his name.
9. GR-17 of India Motor Tariff relates to transfer of the insurance policy, which is reproduced:-
"GR.17. Transfers 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 First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 5 insurance so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
In case of Package Policies, transfer of the "Own Damage" section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee's entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.
A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies. Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs. 50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued."
10. As the policy was not transferred at the time of accident in the name of deceased Rakesh Kumar, as such, there is violation of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff. Sh. Rakesh Kumar deceased had not applied for the transfer of the policy within 14 days after the transfer of the registration of the vehicle in his name to the appellant, as such, the respondents are not entitled for the claim and the claim of the respondents was rightly repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2008. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Om Parkash Sharma Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors.", 2009 CTJ 313 (CP) (NCDRC) upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company as respondent No.1 did not get the policy First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 6 transferred in his name. The Hon'ble National Commission in para 4 observed as follows:-
"As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
11. In its another judgment in case "New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Chandrakant Bhujangrao Jogdand", II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) has exhaustively dealt with the above proposition and observed in paras 5 & 7(relevant part) as follows:-
"5. The matter has been examined by the Bench of this Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. G.T. Shivakumar, in R.P. No. 486 of 2009 decided on 28.8.2009 with reference to GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as also the scope of Section 157 which has been explained by the Apex Court in 'Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.', I (1996) CLT 22 (SC)=II (1996) ACC 536 (SC)=1996 (1) SCC 221.
6. xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
7. In terms of the Regulation GR-17, the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes and issue of fresh certificate of insurance. In case of package policies, the transfer of 'Own Damage" in favour of the transferee shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request along with consent of the transferor. The difference in No Claim Bonus, if the transferee is not entitled to same, is required to be taken into consideration and difference, if any is required to be paid by the transferee. Besides this, fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of package policies."
12. So as per the above law, it is clear that the District Forum has wrongly interpreted the above law, as such, the order of the First Appeal No. 1587 of 2009 7 District Forum is wrong and illegal and the same is liable to be set- aside.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.7.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
July 25, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member