State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India vs Gopal Krishan on 1 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 163 of 2012 Date of Institution : 09.5.2012 Date of Decision : 1.10.2012 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office : SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. --Appellant V e r s u s 1. Gopal Krishan Sharma, son of Sh.D.R.Sharma, First Address :- H.No.202/1, Bank Colony, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Second Address :- H.No.3401/1, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh. 2. H.D.F.C.Bank Limited, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Manager. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: Sh.V.Ramswaroop,Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 ex parte. . CORAM: Justice Sham Sunder, President(Retd) Mrs.Neena Sandhu, Member
Per Justice Sham Sunder(Retd) , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.4.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint and directed Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as under ;
As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,03,940/- to the complainant being the insured value of the vehicle after deducting the depreciation value, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.9.2011 till its realization besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant(now respondent No.1), purchased Indigo LS TDI vehicle, bearing registration No.CH-04-C-4536 from Smt.Prema Mehta.
After the purchase of the car, the same was transferred in his name, by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh.
The car was got insured by the transferor in her name, before the sale thereof. After the car was transferred in the name of the complainant, he approached Opposite Party No.1, on 4.8.2009, and requested for transfer of the Insurance Policy, in his name, but the dealing official told him, that their computer server was down and, as such, he was unable to transfer the Insurance Policy, in his name. On 7.8.2009, the complainant again approached the Insurance Company, but the dealing official told him to submit a cheque of Rs.680/-, on account of transfer fee. It was stated that on 10.8.2009, the complainant through UPC, sent the application for transfer of Insurance Policy, alongwith the necessary documents, and cheque No.278974 dated 7.8.2009 amounting to Rs.680/-, to the Insurance Company, but no reply was received from it.
3. It was further stated that, on the night intervening 16/17.3.2010, the vehicle of the complainant, was stolen, from outside of his house, and the said incident was intimated to the Police on 17.3.2010. Accordingly FIR No.89 dated 20.3.2010 was registered. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the Registering and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh, and the Insurance Company as well as the HDFC Bank, regarding the theft of the vehicle. The Insurance Company deputed an investigator, who visited the place of the complainant. He was provided all the necessary papers alongwith untraced intimation dated 25.5.2010. It was further stated that the Insurance Company vide letter dated 14.7.2010 raised objection that the Policy had not been transferred, in the name of the complainant, within 14 days of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The said letter was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 26.7.2010. It was further stated that vide letter dated 8.10.2010, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the ground, that he was not insured of the vehicle as per the Insurance Companys record, on the date of theft. It was further stated that as per provisions of law, the complainant informed the Insurance Company within 14 days of the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, with a request that the Insurance Policy, in the name of the earlier owner, be transferred to his name, but it did not act upon his request. It was further stated that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, being illegal and arbitrary, was liable to be set aside. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to quash the impugned letter dated 8.10.2010; pay Rs.4,03,940/- being the Insured Declared Value of the stolen value;
pay a sum of Rs.one lac on account of travelling expenses incurred by the complainant in connection with his job; pay Rs.one lac as compensation on account of indulgence into unfair trade practice, and rendering deficient service ; and pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint written version, stated that as per their record, Smt.Prema Mehta w/o Sh.Rakesh Kumar Mehta was the owner of vehicle No.CH-04-C-4536, and she had got insured the same with them for the period from 28.4.2009 to 27.4.2010. It was further stated that neither the complainant, nor Smt.Prema Mehta, ever applied for transfer of the Insurance Policy, in the name of the former, nor they received a cheque of Rs.680/-, on account of transfer fee, nor they received any letter dated 10.8.2009, through UPC, alongwith documents, as alleged in the complaint. It was further stated that intimation through UPC was not a recognized mode of communication, in the legal system. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties received letter dated 30.6.2010, from the complainant. It was further stated that the original owner Smt.Prema Mehta never approached Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for settling her claim. It was further stated that, on receipt of the letter from the complainant, the Opposite Parties sent to him a registered letter that as per their record, the Insurance Policy stood, in the name of Mrs.Prema Mehta, on the date of alleged theft, and, as such, he was not entitled to any claim, the vehicle being not insured in his name. It was denied that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Parties No.3, in its written version, stated that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 2,56,320/- from it. It was further stated that the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of Opposite Party No.3.
It was further stated that the complainant paid the regular instalments of Rs.6580/- P.M. to Opposite Party No.3. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, or it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as stated above, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the vehicle in question, was insured with Opposite Parties No.1 &2, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,03,940/- in the name of Smt. Prema Mehta. He further submitted that, no doubt, the vehicle was stolen during the currency of the Insurance Policy which was in the name of Smt. Prema Mehta. He further submitted that only intimation with regard to the theft of the vehicle was received by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
He further submitted that, as per their record, the ownership of the vehicle, stood in the name of Smt. Prema Mehta, at the time of theft. He further submitted that no letter, intimating Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, from the complainant, that the vehicle, in question, had been transferred in his name on 29.7.2009, and the Insurance Policy be transferred to his name, was ever received. He further submitted that the claim of the complainant, to the effect, that he had sent intimation vide letter dated 10.8.2009 i.e. within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of vehicle, through UPC, was completely false. He further submitted that intimation through UPC, was not a legally recognized mode. He further submitted that since neither the vehicle had been transferred, in the name of the complainant, at the time of theft, nor the Insurance Policy had been transferred, in his name, on the date of theft, he was not entitled to any claim. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was entitled to the claim amount. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the vehicle, no doubt, was earlier registered in the name of Smt. Prema Mehta, from whom the complainant had purchased the same. He further submitted that the vehicle, in the name of the complainant was transferred by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh, on 29.7.2009. He further submitted that immediately after the transfer of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant, he approached the officials of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, but they put him off, on one pretext or the other. He further submitted that ultimately, letter dated 10.8.2009, with which the relevant documents and a cheque of Rs.680/- were annexed, was sent through UPC, to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, with the request, to transfer the Policy, in the name of the complainant, but they failed to do so.
He further submitted that since within 14 days of the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant, a request was made by him to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, for transfer of the Insurance Policy, in his name, and if they did not do, then fault lay on their shoulders. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the claim submitted by the complainant could not be repudiated, by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, illegally and arbitrarily.
12. Admittedly, the original owner of the vehicle was Smt. Prema Mehta. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the vehicle in question, was insured, in her name, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,03,940/-, for the period from 28.4.2009 to 27.4.2010. The question arises, as to when, the vehicle was purchased and transferred, in the name of the complainant, by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. Annexure C9 is the letter, which was written by the Deputy Manager, Service Hub, Regional Office, Chandigarh, to the complainant Vide this letter, he was intimated that Mr.Anurag Midha, their investigator investigated the case, and submitted his report, to the effect, that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in his name(complainant) on 29.7.2009, whereas, the Policy was in the name of Mrs. Prema Mehta, as on the date of alleged theft. Thus, from the letter annexure C9, which was written by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to the complainant, it was proved that the vehicle, in question, was transferred, in the name of the complainant on 29.7.2009.
It means that, on the date of accident, the vehicle had already been transferred in the name of the complainant, and he was the registered owner thereof. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and stands rejected.
13. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, intimation within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant, was given by him, to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, with the request that the Insurance Policy be transferred in his name, or not. The complainant, in his complaint, stated that, immediately on transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, in his name, he met the officials of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, on two occasions, but they put him off, on one pretext or the other. At page 55 of the District Forum file, there is a copy of the letter dated 9.8.2009, vide which request for transfer of Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant, in respect of vehicle No.CH04C4356 was made by him(complainant). Alongwith this letter the relevant documents and a cheque in the sum of Rs.680/-
were also attached. This letter was sent through UPC, copy whereof is Annexure C3. The stamp of the Post Office, affixed on the photocopy of the UPC receipt bears the date 10.8.2009. The UPC receipt was issued by the officials of the Post Office, in due discharge of their official duties. The official acts, done by the public servants, in the due discharge of their officials duties, carry a presumption of correctness, until proved to the contrary. In the face of the letter, referred to above, sent through the UPC Annexure C3, it was for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to produce evidence, to rebut the same. However, no evidence, in this regard, was led by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It may be stated here, that intimation through UPC is one of the legally recognized mode of communication. Under these circumstances, authenticity of the letter at page 55, which was sent through UPC, copy whereof is Annexure C3, could not be doubted.
14. GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002 reads as under ;
GR.17.
Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the Insurance Policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
In case of Package Policies, 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. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferees entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.
A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.
Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued.
15. Due compliance of the provisions of GR-17, was made by the complainant, by intimating the Insurance Company, vide Annexure C-3(colly) at page 55, within 14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in his name alongwith which a copy of the RC, Insurance Policy in original, cheque in the sum of Rs.680/- of ICICI bank, NOC letter of the previous owner, copy of Pan Card and Voter Card of the previous owner, copy of Driving Licence and Pan Card of the complainant, were sent.
Since Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were duly intimated, within 14days, vide letter, referred to above, through UPC, with which the necessary documents were attached, by the complainant, for transfer of the Policy, in his name, if they did not act upon the same, they were at fault. The complainant could only comply with the provisions of GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002. Once he complied with the aforesaid Regulations, it was the bounden duty of Opposite parties No.1 & 2, to transfer the Insurance Policy, in his name. The theft took place after about 7 months of such intimation, having been sent by the complainant, with regard to transfer of the vehicle, in his name. By not transferring the Insurance Policy, in the name of the complainant, on the basis of intimation given by him, and referred to above, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were deficient, in rendering service.
16. The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Tirath Ram Tejpal, First Appeal No.1665 of 2007, decided on 8.6.2012 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, to contend, that since the Insurance Policy had not been transferred, in favour of the complainant, on the date of theft, he was not entitled to claim the amount. The perusal of the aforesaid case, clearly goes to reveal, that no evidence was produced therein, that within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle, in favour of the complainant, he sent a letter for transfer of the Insurance policy in his name. Under these circumstances, it was held by the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, that since the provisions of G.R.17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations 2002, were not complied with, repudiation of the claim of the complainant was legal and valid, and the complainant could not claim any amount, from the Insurance Company. In the instant case, as stated above, within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in favour fo the complainant, he duly intimated Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, vide letter Annexure C3(colly), through UPC, alongwith which a number of documents, referred to above, were attached, for transfer of the Policy in his name. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the principle of law, laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Tirath Ram Tejpals case(supra). The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
17. The District Forum also awarded compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, for mental agony and physical harassment. In the instant case, though intimation within14 days, from the date of transfer of the vehicle, in the name of the complainant, was given by him, to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 , through UPC, with a request to transfer the Insurance Policy, in his name, yet they failed to do so.
On the other hand, the claim of the complainant was illegally and arbitrarily repudiated. The complainant was, thus, unnecessarily dragged to litigation. One can well imagine the plight of the person, whose genuine claim is rejected, and he is compelled to file a Consumer Complaint, for the grant of relief. A lot of mental agony and physical harassment was, thus, suffered, by the complainant at the hands of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. He also suffered financial loss, on account of hiring of some other transport, for following his normal vocation. Under these circumstances, grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainant, by the District Forum, could not be said to be unjust, unfair and unreasonable. On the other hand, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the District Forum, can be said to be just, adequate and reasonable. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are also affirmed.
18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
19. The order, passed by the District Forum, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
21. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
22. The file be consigned to the Record Room, after compliance.
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER)(Retd)
October 1,2012 President
Sd/- (
NEENA SANDHU)
*Js Member
STATE COMMISSION
Appeal case NO.163/2012
Present: Sh.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 ex parte. .
Dated the _ ORDER Vide detailed order, of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Neena Sandhu) (Justice Sham Sunder (Retd.) Member President