State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Aksa General Insurance Co. ... vs Vinod Kumar Sahu on 14 May, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/641
Instituted on : 24.09.2014
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company,
Through : Legal Manager Shri Sameer Babbar,
Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Vinod Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Keshar Singh Sahu,
R/o : Village : Kara, Dharsiwa,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
Through : Power of Attorney Holder :
Baldev Singh, S/o Shri Inder Singh, Bombay Market,
Raipur (C.G.) .... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Deepak Diwan, for appellant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 14/05/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.126/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondent (complainant) and // 2 // directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,750/- within a period of one month to the respondent (complainant) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 03.04.2012 till realisation. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- Advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) Vinod Kumar Sahu is registered owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04-JB-0965 and he obtained insurance policy from the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company for the said vehicle. On 03.11.2011 at about 7.00 P.M. the said vehicle met with an accident near Pali, District Korba (C.G.). The matter was reported in Police Station, Pali, District Korba (C.G.) on 03.11.2011 at about 8.30 P.M. itself. The respondent (complainant) submitted his claim before the appellant (O.P.) but the appellant (O.P.) repudiated claim of the respondent (complainant) hence the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that the respondent (complainant) is not a consumer and the appellant (O.P.) is not a service provider. The respondent (complainant) had no insurable // 3 // interest in the vehicle in question because he had sold the vehicle to one Shri Baldev Singh vide agreement dated 21.10.2010. Shri Baldev Singh had submitted claim in respect of the vehicle in question before the appellant (O.P.) for compensation. Shri Baldev Singh is not registered owner of the vehicle and he was not insured and was not authorized to lodge any claim, therefore, he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question because the respondent (complainant) had sold the vehicle, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is also not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.) because he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question and the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) and it did not commit any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Document No.1 is Power of Attorney, Document No.2 is Certificate of Registration, Document No.3 is Fitness Certificate, Document No.4 is Goods Vehicle Driving Licence, Document No.5 is Driving Licence, Document No.6 is First Information Report, Document 7 is Policy // 4 // Cover Note, Document No. 8 is Motor Insurance Claim Form, Document No.9 is Discharge Voucher, Document No.10 is Estimate of Joginder Singh Motor Repairing Workshop, Raipur (C.G.), Document No.11 is letter dated 31.01.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to Shri Baldev Singh, Document No.12 is legal notice dated 11.02.2012 sent by Shri Manish Shrivastava on behalf of Shir Baldev Singh, Document No.13 is postal receipt, Document No.14 is letter dated 15.03.2012 sent by Shri Manish Shrivatava, Advocate to Sub Post Master, Kutchery Post Office, Raipur (C.G.). Annexure 1 is vehicles details, vehicle ownership details issued by Chhattisgarh Transport Department.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed document. Annexure OP 1 is Smart Motor Commercial Certificate of Insurance and Schedule Renewal Original, Annexure OP-2 is letter dated 31.01.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to Shri Baldev Singh (User), Annexure OP-3 is Agreement for sale of the vehicle, Annexure OP-4 is Motor Insurance Claim Form, Annexure OP-5 is letter dated 04.01.2012 sent by Shri Vinod Sahu to Branch Manager, Bharti Axa General Insurance, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.).
7. Shri Deepak Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) has argued that the vehicle in question was transferred by the respondent (complainant) to one Shri Baldev Singh and he handed over the possession of the vehicle in question to // 5 // Shri Baldev Singh. The respondent (complainant) did not inform the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) regarding transfer of the vehicle in question to Shri Baldev Singh. Even the respondent (complainant) did not bother to change the name of transferee in the insurance policy instead of his name. Learned District Forum has not appreciated the facts of the case properly and committed an error by awarding compensation to the respondent (complainant) and against the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company). He further argued that respondent (complainant) has executed an agreement in favour of Shri Baldev Singh and the name of Shri Baldev Singh was entered in the record of the Chhattisgarh Transport Department, therefore, the respondent (complainant) relinquished his ownership over the vehicle in question and the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to Shri Baldev Singh, hence the respondent (complainant), is not entitled for getting any compensation from the appellant (O.P.). He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mushtaq Khan & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 145 (NC) & Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Bhutada & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 167 (NC).
8. Before us none appeared for the respondent (complainant) on 11.05.2015, when the case is fixed for final arguments.
// 6 //
9. We have heard Shri Deepak Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) filed document Annexure OP-3 i.e. Agreement for Sale of Vehicle. The said agreement was executed between Vinod Kumar Sahu, the respondent (complainant) and Shri Baldev Singh on 21.10.2010. From bare perusal of the said agreement, it appears that the vehicle in question was handed over to Shri Baldev Singh on 21.10.2010. Annexure 1 is vehicle ownership details issued by Chhattisgarh Transport Department in which the name of the owner of the vehicle is mentioned as Shri Baldev Singh, S/o Shri Inder Singh and the registration No. of the vehicle is mentioned as C.G.04-JB-0965. In document containing vehicle ownership details, also the name of Shri Baldev Singh is mentioned as owner.
11. The respondent (complainant) filed incomplete copy of the First Information Report. The appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) sent repudiation letter dated 31.01.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) to Shri Baldev Singh, in which it is mentioned that "as per docs produced by your good self, RC is in name of Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, and policy on the name of Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu. But as per available sale deed vehicle is already sold to Mr. Baldev // 7 // Singh." On the basis of above document, it appears that the respondent (complainant) had already sold the vehicle in question to Shri Baldev Singh.
12. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mushtaq Khan & Anr., (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle as well as insurance policy not transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident, petitioner was not liable to make any payment towards claim. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on judgment delivered by me reported in I (2014) CPJ 493 (NC) - Sandeep Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., in which it was held that if transferee fails to inform Insurance Co. about transfer of registration certificate in his name and policy is not transferred in his name, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay claim in case of own damage of vehicle. Same view has been taken by me in I (2014) CPJ 128 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Thakur. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), Shri Narayan Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on which State Commission has also placed reliance in which it was observed that benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle. In the aforesaid case, accident occurred on 2.8.1995, but after 30.06.2012, as per GR 17, subsequent purchaser was under an obligation to get the vehicle and insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days from the date from the date of transfer of registration certificate in his name for claiming damages to the vehicle. In the case in hand, neither registration certificate was transferred in the name of complainant, nor insurance policy stood transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident and in // 8 // such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments complainant was not entitled to any claim regarding damages to the vehicle and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed."
13. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Bhutada & Anr., (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. Though the transfer was made in May, 2007, no application was made before the RTO for transfer of ownership. Section 50(1)(b) clearly lays down, as under :-
"the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration."
14. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalip Kumar, IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "transferee fails to inform Insurance Company about transfer of Registration Certificate in his name - Policy is not transferred in name of transferee then Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay // 9 // claim in case of own damage of vehicle - Insurance Company justified in repudiating the claim."
15. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamal Tours and Travels, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. It is not in dispute that Respondent had got the vehicle insured with the Petitioner / Insurance Company which was involved in an accident causing loss of the vehicle and which was assessed by the Petitioner's Surveyor at Rs.2,57,455/-. There is, however, credible documentary evidence in the instant case that at the time when the accident took place, insuree had already sold the vehicle to another person. He also did not inform the Petitioner/Insurance Company regarding the sale of vehicle nor was the vehicle transferred in the name of new owner. As stated by the Counsel for Petitioner, in a case under similar circumstances, this Commission has given a clear ruling that if a vehicle is sold by the insuree to another person without intimation to the Insurance Company then in case of any claim covered under the insurance policy, the insuree ceases to have an insurable interest."
16. In the case of Mushtaq Mohd. & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., I (2013) CPJ 64 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, observed that "complainant failed to transfer insurable claim within 14 days from the date of registration, transferee had no insurable interest at the time of accident. He had no locus standi to file the claim."
// 10 //
17. Looking to the documents filed by the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) we find that it is clearly established that the respondent (complainant) transferred the vehicle in question to Shri Baldev Singh. The respondent (complainant) handed over the possession of the vehicle in question to Shri Baldev Singh. The vehicle in question is a movable property and the provisions of Sale of Goods Act applies in case of sale of the vehicle and therefore, when the vehicle in question was delivered to new owner and the new owner took possession of the vehicle in question, then the sale of the movable property was complete. Thus, the vehicle in question was transferred by the respondent (complainant) himself to Shri Baldev Singh, therefore, it was necessary for Shri Baldev Singh to have made a prayer to the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) as per provisions of G.R.17 as well as under Sub Clause (2) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy. No such prayer has been made. Thus, the new owner of the vehicle in question had not become insured of the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) and after having parted away with the possession of the vehicle in question, the respondent (complainant) was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Therefore, the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) and it has not committed any deficiency in service.
// 11 //
18. We are of the view that the order recorded by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company) and impugned order dated 30.07.2014, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent (complainant) is also dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal. (Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /05/2015 /05/2015 /05/2015 /05/2015