State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harmanpreet Singh vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... on 8 July, 2022
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 96 of 2021
Date of Institution : 27.10.2021
Date of Decision : 08.07.2022
Harmanpreet Singh son of Sh. Gurpreet Singh resident of House No.42,
Prem Nagar, Near Government School, Ambala City, District Ambala,
Haryana. Mobile No.8950095620 Email:[email protected]
...Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Bhawan, Plot
No.2, Sector-28A, 3rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (U.T) 160002
through its Manager/authorized person.
2nd Address :
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Sadan, C-1,
District Center, Saket, New Delhi 110017 through its
Manager/authorized person.
2. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Manager/authorized person.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present:- Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 23.02.2022.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Whether, on transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the interest of the insured in respect of the insurance of the said vehicle automatically stands transferred to the transferee?, is the moot question to be discussed and answered in this appeal.
2. This appeal has been filed by the complainant (in short the appellant), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.560 of 2019 was dismissed.
23. The facts in brief are that Sh. Sandeep Kumar was the registered owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-78B-5280, make Maruti S-cross Delta, which was insured with opposite party no.1 under Package Policy (Private Vehicle), Annexure C-1, for the period from 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2017, for an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.7,37,134/-. The said car was sold to the complainant-Harmanpreet Singh on 04.09.2017. The papers of the said car were sent to the Registering Authority, (M.V.) Ambala for transfer of the registration of the vehicle on 05.09.2017, Annexure C-2. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on the intervening night of 10/11.9.2017 in Chandigarh. As such, DDR No.10 dated 11.09.2017 was registered with the Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh. Opposite party no.1 was also informed immediately, about the said accident on its toll free number as well as through email. The vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor appointed by opposite party no.1, for assessing loss caused to it in the said accident. It was observed that the vehicle was beyond repair and as such, was decaled as total loss. However, thereafter, opposite party no.1 rejected the claim of the complainant as "No Claim", which was informed to him vide letters dated 27.10.2018, Annexure C-6 and 06.12.2018, Annexure C-7, on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle. Relevant part of the said letters are reproduced hereunder:-
"......Dear Sir.
Sub: Accident claim on vehicle No. HR78B5280 Claim No. 37295589 date of loss 11/09/2017 Ref: Policy/Cover-note No. 68324678 SBU-79 This is in reference to the claim lodged by you as per the above said details.
In respect of your claim we have appointed surveyor M/s Pee Key & Co. to survey and assess the loss. Based on the survey following are the observation.
The policy is in the name of Mr. Sandeep Kumar. According to RC on record, the owner of the vehicle is Mr. Harmanpreet Singh w.e.f. 05/09/2017 Date of reported loss is 24/11/2017.
From above, you will notice that on the date of loss, while the owner of the vehicle was Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, the policy was in the name of Mr. Sandeep Kumar.
So there is no policy existing in the name of Mr. Harmanpreet Singh on the said vehicle.
You will also appreciate that the policy in the name of Mr. Sandeep Kumar will not respond on claim as Mr. Harmanpreet Singh has no Insurable Interest in the said vehicle on the date of 3 loss. We are therefore bound by the basic principle of insurance "Insurable Interest" to repudiate this claim.
In light of the above, we regret to inform you that based on the above mentioned observation, your claim is not tenable and stands closed as No Claim.
Thanking you, ".............Dear Sir.
Sub: Accident claim on vehicle No. HR-78B-5280 Claim No. 37295589 date of loss 11/09/2017 Ref: Policy/Cover-note No. 68324678 SBU-79 This is in reference to the claim lodged by you as per the above said details, In respect of your claim we have appointed surveyor M/s Pee Key & Co. to survey and assess the loss. Based on the survey following are the observation.
The policy is in the name of Mr. Sandeep Kumar. According to RC provided by claimant, the owner of the vehicle is Mr.Harmanpreet Singh.
Date of loss as mentioned in claim form is 11.09.2017 Date of intimation of claim to ITGI is 24.11.2017 On the date of loss, the insurance policy was in the name of Sandeep Kumar and insured had no information received from claimant/new owner, about the change of ownership in the name of Harmanpreet Singh.
Therefore the policy in the name of previous owner will not respond to the claim lodged by claimant/new owner Harmanpreet Singh.
As per General rules of motor vehicle insurance policy, the extract of which is mentioned below: In case of Package Polices, 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.
In the instant case, Insurer had not received any such request from transferee/claimant regarding the transfer of comprehensive package policy as on date of loss.
In your grievance you have sought to know whether the coverage under the policy is available to new owner within 14 days period from transfer of the vehicle. We would like to clarify that only Third Party Liability coverage is deemed to have transferred to transferee who is required to inform the Insurer about ownership transfer within 14 days of such transfer to make necessary changes in the policy.
In view of above, we regret to inform you that based on the above mentioned observation, your claim is not tenable and stands closed as No Claim.4
Thanking you, Yours truly, For IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd..."
4. After repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, seeking following relief, by stating that the vehicle stood transfer in his name on 05.09.2017; that on the date of accident, he was the registered owner of the said vehicle, as such, repudiation of his claim by the opposite party no.1 is illegal:-
i) To make payment of the claim amount of Rs.7,37,134/ (Rupees seven lakhs thirty seven thousand one hundred and thirty four only) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident to date of payment to the complainant.
ii) To pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) on account of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice, causing mental agony, torture and harassment to the complainant.
iii) To pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as cost of litigation.
iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. The complaint was contested by opposite party no.1 mainly on the ground that on the date of accident, the complainant was not the insured, as the policy in question had been purchased by one Sh. Sandeep Kumar and that the complainant failed to furnish GR-17 form for transfer of insurance policy in his name. However, it was admitted that the above said vehicle was insured under the said insurance policy for the IDV of Rs.7,37,134/-.
6. None put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte by the District Commission.
7. On appreciation of evidence and hearing the contesting parties, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint, while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane & Ors., R.P. No.3896 of 2013 decided on 27.7.2020. Hence this appeal.
8. We have heard the contesting parties and scanned the material available on the record, including the written arguments filed by respondent no.1-IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited.
9. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate that it was evident from the document Annexure C-2 having been issued by the Registration Authority (M.V.) Ambala, that the vehicle in question stood transferred in favour of the 5 complainant on 05.09.2017. Copy of the said Registration Certificate is at Annexure C-3. He further submitted that vide email dated 17.09.2017 Annexure C-5, intimation of the accident was sent by the complainant, to the insurance company. Vide the said email, the complainant also inquired about the claim procedure but all these facts have been ignored by the District Commission. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance of following case laws:-
i. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Abhishek Kumar and others, 2017 (1) RCR (Civil) 128 P.H.;
ii. Mallama Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2014 (2) CCC 694 (SC);
iii. Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance, Civil Appeal No.2632 of 2020, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court;
iv. Khurshid and another Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co., 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 121 P.H.;
v. Jaina Constrution Co. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. and anr. Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.02.2022; and vi. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2059 of 2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in December 2019.
10. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1-insurance company while placing reliance of following judgments, stated that since the complainant failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name after getting registration of ownership of the vehicle done in his favour, as such, his claim has been rightly repudiated by it:-
i. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s G.T. Shivakumar in R.P. NO. 486 of 2009 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 28-8-2009 ii. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1996 (1) SCC 221 iii. Revision Petition No.2964 of 2007, M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Goli Sridhar decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 22.11.2011
11. In the instant case, when the claim was submitted by the complainant, it was repudiated by respondent no.1-insurance company vide 6 repudiation letters Annexure C-6 and C-7, relevant contents of which have been extracted above. However, in this case, the following facts are not in dispute:-
a. Sh. Sandeep Kumar was registered owner of the vehicle in question;
b. Sh. Sandeep Kumar, got the vehicle in question insured for the period from 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2017, for an IDV of Rs.7,37,134/- on making premium amount of Rs.21,022/- to respondent no.1-insurance company under Package Policy (Private Vehicle);
c. the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant on 04.09.2017.
12. Annexure C-2 is the Registration Certificate issued by the Registering Authority (M.V.), Ambala, certifying as under:-
"...it is verified that the Vehicle No.HR78B-5280 is transferred on 5/9/2017 in R.A. Ambala in the name of Harmanpreet Singh #42, Prem Nagar, Haryana, as per Office Record....
Sd/-
13/11/18 Registering Authority (M.V.) Ambala......"
Thus, from the bare perusal of Annexure C-2 it is very much clear that the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 05.09.2017, by the Registering Authority (M.V.), Ambala. Annexure C-3 is a computerized registration certificate in the name of the complainant, which is valid upto 30.11.2030. DDR No.010 dated 11.09.2017, Annexure C-4 transpires that intimation of the accident of the vehicle in question was given to the Police on 11.09.2017. Annexure C-5 is the email sent by the complainant to respondent no.1-insurance company on 17.09.2017 at 10.38 am as under:-
"......To: [email protected] Hello Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
I Harmanpreet Singh, purchased S-cross from Mr Sandeep Kumar on 2nd day of September And on 5th applied for RC in RTO Ambala as I am resident of Ambala City. ON 14th day of September I got my RC under my name. But Insurance was under Mr.Sandeep Kumar (First Owner).7
Car Details:
S Cross Delta Eng/Chasis no: 5148818/106382 Reg No: HR78B5280/Kurukshetra Policy Req ID: 20895271 My close friend Mr Sanamdeep Singh visited my office on 10th September night, he took my car as he want to took his friend for dinner.
He fall asleep in the car and car got crashed 19/20/27/30 sector chowk.
He called 100 to take help of police. In no time police came and took them to Sec 32, Govt Hospital I want to know the procedure that how should I file a claim?
Please Suggest Best Regards Harmanpreet Singh........."
13. Bare perusal of the repudiation letters, already extracted above, reveal that the claim of the complainant was rejected by opposite party no.1, solely on the ground that since the vehicle in question stood transferred in the name of the complainant but the insurance policy was not got transferred in his name and it still stands in the name of the original owner- Sandeep Kumar, as such, the complainant had no insurable interest. In our considered opinion, opposite party no.1 was not justified in rejecting the claim on the said ground, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Firstly, it is necessary to refer Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:-
"......Section 157 of MV Act 1988 :-Transfer of certificate of insurance -- (1) Where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer..........."
14. Section 157 of the M.V. Act, clearly says that where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate, shall be deemed to 8 have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. Under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs The New India Assurance Company, Civil Appeal No. 2632 Of 2020, decided on 18 June, 2020 held that "Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 introduces a deeming provision whereby the transfer of the certificate of Insurance and the policy of Insurance are deemed to have been made, where the vehicle along with the Insurance policy is transferred by the owner to another person."
15. In view of above, it is held that since in the present case also, admittedly the registration of the vehicle in question stood transferred in the name of the complainant on 05.09.2017, as such, it was not required for him to get the insurance policy transferred in his name because the existing insurance policy in question, in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred in his name and the policy will not lapse, in view of Section 157 of the M.V. Act referred to above, even if, intimation in that regard was not given to the insurer. In this view of the matter, it is held that repudiation of the claim of the complainant by respondent no.1- insurance company was illegal. The District Commission, thus, fell into a grave error in dismissing the complaint of the complainant, by holding to the contrary.
16. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, dismissing the consumer complaint, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, needs interference of this Commission. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. The consumer complaint filed by the complainant/appellant stands partly allowed against respondent no.1 only and dismissed against respondent no.2. Accordingly, respondent no.1-insurance company is directed as under:-
(i) To pay/reimburse the claim amount to the extent of Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.7,37,134/-, as the same has been declared total loss, alongwith interest @9% p.a. the date of repudiation of claim i.e. from 27.10.2018. However, the wreck of the vehicle shall remain in the custody of respondent no.1.
(ii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant/complainant, for causing him mental agony, harassment and humiliation and also deficiency in 9 providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, as his genuine claim was repudiated.
(iii) To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant/complainant.
(iv) This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which the awarded amounts shall further entail interest @12% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
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.
08.07.2022 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg.