State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjeev Khurana vs Tata Aig Life Insurance on 2 February, 2015
SECOND ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014
Date of Institution : 01.10.2014.
Date of Decision : 02.02.2015
Sanjeev Khurana son of Shri Mangat Rai Khurarna, resident of
House No.87, Defence Colony, B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.
..... Appellants/complainant
Versus
1.Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301, 308, Third
Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema
Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi through its Director/M.D.
2.Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Dashmesh
Complex, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.
..... Respondents/opposite parties
Appeal against order dated 22-07-2014 passed
by District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate
.............................................................................................
Jasbir Singh Gill, Member:-
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) against order dated 22.07.2014 First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014 2 passed in CC No. 682 of 2013 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Forum"), vide which the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant as there was no insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle in question on the date of theft, as such, the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) could not be held liable to pay the claim.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased the vehicle i.e. Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.PB- 10-CW-5559 from Ketan Sachdev for his personal use, which was insured with the OPs, vide insurance policy No.015190322500 valid from 02.05.2012 to 01.05.2013 on payment of premium of Rs.15,736/-. Complainant got transferred the above said vehicle in his own name in Nov. 2012. The said vehicle was stolen while parked in front of pink flats at about 08:30 PM on 17.03.2013. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police. On 21.03.2013, police registered the FIR No. 24 u/s 379/34 IPC at P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs company, vide claim No.620615758 alongwith requisite documents as demanded by the OPs from time to time but the OPs repudiated the same by taking false plea that the said vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant's firm M/s Magic Health, but First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014 3 he failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his firm's name. Hence, the complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written reply. Preliminary objections were taken by the OPs that the present complaint was barred under Section 26 of the Act. It was not maintainable as no deficiency on the part of the OPs. On receipt of claim lodged by complainant, it was duly registered, entertained and processed by the OPs and appointed M/s Claims Investigation Agency, New Delhi as investigator, who submitted the report that Sanjeev Khurana complainant had got transferred the RC in his firm's name but he did not transfer the insurance policy in the name of firm. It was still in the name of previous owner Mr. Ketan Sachdev at the time of theft of the vehicle and this case is "Non Insurable Contract". OPs further pleaded that they had righty repudiated the claim and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. On the other hand OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi, its Head North Zone Claims as Ex.R-A along with other documents Ex.R-1 to R-7.
6. On conclusion of evidence and documents placed on record, complaint of the complainant was dismissed as the complainant had to got the insurance policy transferred in his firm's First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014 4 name within the stipulated period of 14 days after transfer of the vehicle as per the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as per GR 17.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant has come up in appeal on the ground that the Ld. District Forum has committed a grave error by not considering the fact that registration certificate has been got transferred in the name of the firm of the complainant after canceling the previous hypothecation which was by same financer and also applied for the transfer of the insurance in the name of his firm, but due to the delay on the part of the agent the same could not be transferred in his firm's name and prayed for acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
8. In this case complainant purchased a vehicle (Swift Dezire), from Ketan Sachdev, who signed all the requisite documents and handed over the possession as well as the documents to the complainant and the loan of the car was also adjusted in the name of the complainant's firm. After purchasing the above said vehicle, the complainant got transferred the vehicle in the name of his firm in Nov. 2012. On 17.03.2013, the said car was stolen while parked in front of Pink Flats at about 08:30 P.M. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police and lodged the FIR. He also informed the insurance company. But the plea of the OP is that the vehicle in question was stolen on 17.03.2013, whereas the insurance policy First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014 5 was not transferred in the name of his firm from the first owner of the vehicle. As per General Regulation 17 of India Motor Tariff, which deals with transfers; provides as under:
"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"
The same view has been taken by Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Akbar CPR Vol. II 2014(1) 397 that inspite of intimation of transfer of vehicle by the complainant to the Insurance Company, complainant is not entitled for indemnification of damages to the vehicle till policy is transferred in the complainant's name.
9. Since the vehicle was transferred in the name of firm of the complainant on 01.11.2012, the theft took place on 17.03.2013 where as the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of his firm so the complainant was not having any insurance contract with the OP. Therefore, complaint on his behalf was not maintainable. First Appeal No. 1355 of 2014 6
10. The counsel for appellant could not make any point on the basis of this the appeal could be admitted. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.01.2015 and the order was reserved.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER February 2, 2015 (MM)