National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ram Singh vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 14 March, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4776 OF 2012 (From the order dated 29.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 786/2012 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Ram Singh s/o Sh. Kartar Singh r/o Village Naharpur, Tehsil & District Mewat, Haryana. ... Petitioner/complainant versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its authorised signatory, S.C.O. No. 135 137, IInd Floor, Sector 9 C, Chandigarh. Respondent/OP
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 14th MARCH 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 786/2012, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ram Singh, vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 02.05.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, in Consumer Complaint no. 322/2010, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant Ram Singh had a scorpio vehicle, bearing registration no. HR27A 8047, which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide policy No. 1310792311001902 for the period 29.05.2009 to 28.05.2010 with the insured amount of ` 6,19,200/-. The complainant alleged that in the night of 14.07.2009, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown persons. An FIR was lodged with the Police Station on 14.07.2009 and a claim was lodged with the insurance company for a sum of `_6,19,200/-. The respondent insurance company appointed a surveyor to enquire into the incident and based on that, the claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 21.12.2009, saying that the said vehicle had been sold to one Satish Chand, even before taking the policy and since the purchaser had no insurable interest, the claim was not payable. The Police also filed report under section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 16.10.2009, saying that the case was untraced. The complaint was lodged with the police by the purchaser Satish Chand in which he had stated that he purchased the said vehicle from Ram Singh on 07.02.2008, but the vehicle was stolen before transfer in his name. The vehicle was stolen from the custody of the purchaser. The consumer complaint was then filed by the original owner Ram Singh, seeking refund of `_6,19,200/- with interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and a compensation of ` 50,000/- for mental harassment.
3. The respondent/OP in their reply before the District Forum stated that the complainant had taken the policy in question from them but he had sold the vehicle to Satish Chand on 07.02.2008 and also submitted Form 29 and Form 30 as evidence of having sold the vehicle. Since the purchaser Satish Chand had no insurable interest in the matter at the time of theft, the claim could not be paid. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to pay 75% of the assured amount on non-standard basis, alongwith interest @9% p.a. and ` 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company versus Nitin Khandelwal [2008 ACJ 2035]. However, an appeal made against this order was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order and it was held that since the vehicle was sold prior to the date of theft and no intimation had been given to the Insurance Company with respect to sale purchase of the vehicle in question, the complainant was not entitled for any compensation, as there was no insurable interest between the parties with respect to the vehicle in question. It is against this order that the present petition has come up.
4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of theft, the vehicle was in the name of the petitioner which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and hence, the said claim should be allowed by the Insurance Company. He has drawn our attention to an order passed by this Commission in Banowarilal Agrawalla versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC)], saying that under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Policy should be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the purchaser. He also stated that Regulation GR-10 was in place at the relevant time and Regulation GR-17 came into force later.
5. After the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a number of judgements on 24.02.2014 in support of his arguments. The list of these judgements is as below:-
Sl. No. Citation Cause Title
1.
2011 (2) SCC 240 Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. versus Shakutla & others
2. 2009 (1) SCC 558 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Santro Devi & Others
3. 2005(IV) CPJ 110 (NC) Banowarilal Agarwal versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
4. 2008(II) CPJ 364 (NC) National insurance Co. Ltd. versus Shrawan Bhati
5. 2007(III) CPJ 367 (Delhi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ram Gopal Sharma
6. 2007(I)CPJ 150 (Punjab) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. versus Dharam Pal
7. 2008(IV) CPJ 1 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nitin Khandelwal
8. 2007(I)CPJ 423 (Rajasthan) Jai Pal Singh & Anr. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
9. 2011 (II) CPJ 480 (Kerala) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus C.M. Ibrahim Kutty
10. 2010(II) CPJ 79 (West Bengal) Tushar Kanti Sahoo versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
6. The petitioner has tried to project by citing the above judgements that if the transfer of ownership has not been affected in the record, the previous owner is liable to be given insurance claim by the Insurance Company. A perusal of the judgments quoted above, shows that the facts in most of these judgements are different and not applicable in the present case. In Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. versus Shakuntla & Ors. (supra), the claim amount related to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal case, but it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that the previous owner of the vehicle was liable for payment of compensation amount and since there was insurance policy in his name, the claim would be shifted to the insurer. The present case relates, however, to the theft of the vehicle and it is an admitted fact that even after selling the vehicle to another person, the previous owner took the policy in his name which he could not do.
7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Santro Devi & others (supra), the owner of the vehicle had already died, but the policy was still got renewed in his name by the Bank. Obviously, the facts of this case are not applicable to the present case.
8. In the other cases quoted by the petitioner decided by the National Commission or various State Commissions, the facts are quite different because in some cases, the factum of sale had not been proved.
9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A minor delay of 8 days in filing the present revision petition is ordered to be condoned in view of the position explained in the application for condonation of delay filed alongwith the revision petition.
10. As admitted by the parties, the vehicle in question, was sold by the original owner/petitioner Ram Singh to Satish Chand on 07.02.2008. In accordance with Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the factum of transfer was reported to the registering authority by the transferor Ram Singh on the prescribed Form-29 and by the transferee Satish Chand on Form-30. It is not understood, therefore, how the petitioner took the insurance policy in his name, valid from 29.05.2009 to 28.05.2010, when he had already sold the vehicle to Satish Chand and also filed Form-29 and Form-30 in support of having sold the vehicle. It is also clear from record that the alleged theft of the vehicle took place from the custody of the transferee, Satish Chand only. The FIR in question was lodged with the Police by Satish Chand, the transferee. However, since the insurance policy in question stands in the name of the petitioner, it is very clear that the purchaser does not have any insurable interest with regard to the vehicle. Further, even if the registration of the vehicle stands in the name of Ram Singh petitioner and the Insurance Policy is also in his name, he shall not be entitled to get the claim, because he has already declared on appropriate proforma that he had sold the vehicle to Satish Chand. The petitioner is also not, therefore, entitled to the claim in question. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission, dismissing the complaint in question. The citations quoted by the petitioner do not help him at all, because there cannot be a deemed transfer in favour of the purchaser.
11. In view of the situation above, there is no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed and consequently, the consumer complaint in question also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/