National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company ... vs Nirmal Singh & Anr. on 12 April, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3373 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 08/01/2018 in Appeal No. 545/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ONE OF ITS OFFICES AT MERCANTILE HOUSE, 7TH FLOOR, 15, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NIRMAL SINGH & ANR. S/O. SURINDER SINGH R/O. VILLAGE SAHAULI, TEHSIL NABHA DISTRICT-PATIALA PUNJAB 2. HARPREET KAUR D/O. BALWINDER SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE KULAR KHURD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-SANGRUR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate alongwith A.R. of petitioner
Mr. Rishi Kant For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 12 Apr 2019 ORDER
IA/23172/2018 (For c/delay)
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing this petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the said delay is condoned subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- as cost with the Legal Aid Account of NCDRC within three weeks from today. The application stands disposed of.
No one is present for the respondents despite respondent no.2 having been served by Post and both the respondents who are husband and wife, having been served dasti. I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the record.
RP/3373/2018 The parents of respondent no.2/complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur purchased a vehicle in the name of complainant no.1/respondent no.1 Nirmal Singh for gifting the same in the marriage of the respondents/complainants. The said vehicle was got insured with the petitioner company. On 13.03.2012, the vehicle met with an accident when being driven by one of their relatives namely Sukhdeep Singh and got damaged. A surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The surveyor declared the vehicle to be a total loss. Thereafter, the marriage of the complainants was dissolved and the vehicle in question was returned to complainant no.2. The vehicle was sold to her. The claim lodged with the petitioner company having not been paid, the respondents/complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia pleaded in its reply that the accident had happened on 19.01.2012 and not on 13.03.2012. It was further stated in the written version that if the date of loss is assumed to be 13.03.2012, the complainants did not have insurable interest in the vehicle, complainant no.1 having already sold the same to complainant no.2 on 09.03.2012.
3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission accepted the case of the complainants that the insured vehicle had met with an accident on 13.03.2012 as had been pleaded by them in the Consumer Complaint and not on 29.01.2012 as had been pleaded by the insurer.
5. A perusal of the affidavit sworn by complainant no.1 Nirmal Singh would show that the insured vehicle had already been sold by him to complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur. The said affidavit having been executed on 09.03.2012, the vehicle obviously, was sold on or before that date. The accident having happened on 13.03.2012, complainant no.1 Sh. Nirmal Singh did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle on that date. It would be pertinent to note here that in his affidavit, Mr. Nirmal Singh had also stated that he had received the entire consideration of the vehicle and had delivered its possession to the purchaser Harpreet Kaur.
6. It is not in dispute that Smt. Harpreet Kaur had not got the vehicle transferred in her name on or before 13.03.2012 when it met with an accident. It is also not in dispute that the insurance policy continued to be in the name of complainant no.1 Nirmal Singh and was not transferred in the name of complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur. No application by Harpreet Kaur was submitted to the insurer for transferring the insurance policy in her name. Thus, there was no contract of insurance between complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur and the petitioner company on the date the vehicle met with an accident. Unless the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the purchaser Harpreet Kaur or she had obtained a new policy in her favour, there would be no contract of insurance between her and the petitioner and therefore, the insurer would not be liable to re-imburse her in the event of a damage to the vehicle till the time the insurance policy is transferred in his name or a fresh insurance cover is obtained by him. The view taken by me also finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in [(1996) 1 SCC 221] decided on 21.11.1995. The following view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. (supra) is relevant in this regard:-
"It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct."
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the claim was not payable either to complainant no.1 or to complainant no.2. It was not payable to complainant no.1 since he did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle on the date it met with an accident. It was not payable to complainant no.2 since there was no contract of insurance between her and the petitioner on the date the vehicle met with an accident.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The Consumer Complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.
The amount if any, deposited by the petitioner either with the State Commission or with the District Forum, shall be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER