National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Capt. Ajay Singh Yadav And Anr. on 31 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: II(2008)CPJ71(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 10.2.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 31.10.2005 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay total amount of Rs. 1,78,888 with interest (c) 8% p.a. w.e.f. 2.5.2005 to the respondent/ complainant.
2. Captain Ajay Singh Yada v, respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 was the registered owner of Toyota Qualis having registration No HR-29-N-0018. He sold the vehicle to his maternal aunt Smt. Vasu Devi and registration certificate was also transferred in her name on 12.10.2004, respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner of the sale of the vehicle and requested for transfer of insurance policy in the name of Smt. Vasu Devi. Receipt of the letter dated 19.10.2004 was alleged to have been acknowledged by the branch office of the petitioner at SCO No. 45,1st Floor, Sector-20-C, Chandigarh. Vehicle met with an accident on 2.12.2004. FIR being No. 296 was lodged with the police. Petitioner-Insurance Company who was informed of the accident, which appointed Dr. G.S. Rirar, Surveyor to assess the losses. On claim being repudiated on ground of respondent No. 1 having no insurable interest in the vehicle and the policy vehicle having not been transferred in the name of Smt. Vasu Devi. Respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner on the ground the claim was repudiated.
3. Mr. Abhishek Rao for petitioner has challenged the orders passed by Fora below on the ground of respondent No. 1 having no insurable interest in the vehicle and insurance policy of the vehicle ha viiig not been transferred in the name of Smt. Vasu Devi on the date of accident. Respondent No. 1 alleged that by the letter dated 19.10.2004 the petitioner was intimated of the sale of vehicle and requested to transfer insurance policy in the name of Smt. Vasu Devi, transferee. However, the petitioner denied of having received the letter dated 19.10.2004. In support of above said allegation the respondents filed the copies of letter dated 19.10.2004 as Annexure 'C-2' and acknowledgement receipt, Annexure 'C-3'. Photocopy of this letter is at page 39 while that of acknowledgement receipt is at page 40 on the Paper-book. To be only noted that acknowledgement receipt bears the seal of the concerned branch of the petitioner together with initials with date as 19.10.2004. Pursuant to the order dated 8.5.2006 the petitioner has filed the copy of the affidavit filed by way of evidence of Sandip Thap, then posted as Branch Manager of the petitioner-company. Though it is averred in this affidavit that on inquiry from the employees regarding signature he can vouchsafe that none of them put signature on the acknowledgement receipt Annexure 'C-3' but Shri Thapa did not have the audacity to deny that the seal appearing on said acknowledgement receipt was not that of the branch. Petitioner will, thus, be presumed to have admitted the seal of the branch on Annexure 'C-3'. That being so, it was for the petitioner to have explained under what circumstances the seal of branch came to be affixed on the said acknowledgement receipt.
4. Petitioner has not furnished any explanation whatsoever in the matter. In this backdrop, the conclusion reached by the State Commission that letter dated 19.1Q.2004 was received in the branch of the petitioner Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. This letter was sent within 14 days of the transfer of vehicle on 12.10.2004 as required under GR 17. As rightly held by State Commission if that request for transfer of insurance policy was not in proper form and fee of Rs. 50 had not been sent the Insurance Company should have asked respondent No. 1 to submit the request in proper form along with fee of Rs. 50 and it should not have kept mum. It was due to the fault of Insurance Company that policy was not transferred in the name of respondent No. 2. Petitioner cannot evade liability under the policy.
5. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by District Forum as modified by the State Commission in Appeal No. 252 of 2005 filed by the respondent.
6. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.