Ravinder Singh son of Sh Harjinder Singh resident of St No.18, Mohalla Roop Nagar, Hoshiarpur.




Complainant


vs.



Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. branch at Jail Road, Hoshiarpur through its Branch Manager.


Opposite party



1. The complainant namely Ravinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Max Pick Up bearing registration no. PB 07-R-0319, which was insured with the OP from 11.3.2008 to 10.3.2009.


2. It is the case of the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.7.2008 at Chohal. The vehicle got damaged in the accident. The claim was lodged with the OP. The necessary documents for settlement of the claim were submitted with Insurance Company. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.63,000/- on the repair of the vehicle but the OP paid only Rs.15532/- through cheque dated 24.7.2008, which was received under protest.


3. It is the allegation of the complainant that the OP is liable to pay the entire claim amount of Rs.63,000/- . The complainant made a request to the OP to pay the balance amount, spent on the repair of the vehicle but of no consequences. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.8.2008 to the OP, which was duly received on 30.8.2008.


4. OP filed the reply Preliminary objections vis a vis maintainability, jurisdiction, estoppel and non joinder of necessary parties were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the claim of the complainant has already been settled at Rs.15,532/-, as assessed by the approved surveyor and the payment had been made vide cheque no. 201716 dated 24.7.2008 payable at HDFC Bank . The said cheque has been received by the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim. It is denied that the complainant had spent Rs.63,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. It is also denied that the complainant received the said cheque of Rs.15,532/- under protest. It is further replied that after the intimation of the accident, the OP deputed Sh S.S.Notra- surveyor to assess the loss and as per his report dated 10.7.2008, the vehicle suffered damage to the extent of Rs.15,382/- and the claim was settled accordingly.


5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of- Sanjiv Ex. C-1, Vinod Kumar Ex. C-2, Ajit Singh Ex.C-3, Sarwan Singh Ex. C-4, Mohinder Singh Ex.C-5, Deep Singh Ex. C-6, Raj Kumar Ex. C-7, Sanjiv Kumar Ex. C-8, complainant Ex. C-9, insurance cover note Mark C-10, RC Mark C-11, estimate Mark C-12, bills of- Rs.4300/- Mark C-13, Rs.1200/- Mark C-14, Rs.4200/- Mark C-15, Rs.2503/- Mark C-16,Rs.7540/- Mark C-17, Rs.15,000/- Mark C-18, Rs.15,000/- Mark C-19, Rs.14,000/- Mark C-20, letter dated 16.8.2008 Ex. C-21, postal receipts Ex. C-22, C-23 and cheque of Rs.15532/- Mark C-24 and closed the evidence.


6. In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Koul Ex. OP-1, affidavit of S.S.Notra Ex. OP-2, insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex. OP-3, survey report dated 10.7.2008 Ex. OP-4, discharge voucher Ex. OP-5, copy of cheque of Rs.15532.- Mark OP-6 and closed the evidence,


7. The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.


8. Ex. OP-5 is a receipt/discharge voucher amounting to Rs.15,382/-. The said amount of Rs.15,382/- has been paid by the opposite party to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim under policy No.0616407092 in respect of vehicle no.PB 07-R-0319,M/Max Pick Up.


9. Now it is established on record that the complainant had received the amount of Rs 15,382/- in full and final settlement of the claim from the opposite party under policy no. 0616407092 .. That despite of execution of a discharge voucher qua Ex.OP-5, there is no allegation of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation from the side of the complainant. It means that the said receipt/ discharge voucher amounting to Rs 15,382/- had not been obtained by the opposite party from the complainant by exercising fraud, undue influence or by misrepresentation. It is also proved that the complainant while receiving the said amount gave a clean discharge to the opposite party without any qualification, signifying its receipt in full and final settlement of the claim. Reliance placed on 2006, CTJ , 1065( Supreme Court)(CP) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd.


10. Now, the next question to be considered is as to whether after giving a clean discharge receipt by accepting the amount of Rs.15,382/- and signing the voucher, the complainant can maintain the present complaint. The answer to this is in the negative. As already noticed, the payment of Rs.15,382 /- has been made by the opposite party to the complainant and the complainant gave a clean discharge to the opposite party without any qualification and in token thereof issued the receipt in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.


11. Since, the complaint is liable to fail on this sole ground discussed in para supra, therefore, it will be a vain attempt to go into the other aspects of the matter on merits, as such, it is held that the claim was finally settled qua receipt/ discharge voucher, Ex.OP-5, thus, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is also proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

Chatarpal Sharma son of Sh.Babu Lal, resident of 2044, Urban Vihar, Jawadi, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Pune, through its General Manager/M.D.



2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Area Office, SCO147, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

(Opposite parties)






O R D E R



1. This order shall dispose off an application moved by the opposite party for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation.

2. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties on this application and also perused the record.

3. Complainant in auction conducted by opposite party on 11.4.2006 purchased a Maruti Zen Car for Rs. 2,20,000/-, which amount he immediately deposited with the opposite party. At the time of sale, opposite party assured the complainant to deliver him documents of the vehicle regarding ownership within few days, so that complainant may get the vehicle registered in his name. Thereafter, several times approached the opposite party with request to deliver the documents to which they paid no heed and ultimately refused to deliver such documents. Then he served legal notice dated 6.1.2009 but despite it they failed to deliver the documents to the complainant.

4. It is as such apparent from the pleadings of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased on 11.4.2006 and opposite party had promised to handover documents pertaining to ownership within few days. It means, cause of action accrued to the complainant in April 2006 and within few days thereof when ownership documents were to be given to him. But they despite his attempts failed to provide him documents. As per pleadings, they refused to deliver the documents and then served legal notice dated 6.1.2009. As such, cause of action had commenced to the complainant on 11.4.2008 and within few days thereafter. But this complaint was instituted on 27.2.2009 i.e. after three years of the purchase. Whereas this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. No reasons have been given to explain the delay. Neither any prayer is made to condone the delay in filing the complaint.

5. It is as such clear that the complaint is barred by limitation being filed beyond limitation of two years. No reason has forth come to explain such delay in filing the complaint. Hence, we find merit in application of the opposite party and same is allowed. Consequently, complaint being time barred is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

Chatarpal Sharma son of Sh.Babu Lal, resident of 2044, Urban Vihar, Jawadi, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Pune, through its General Manager/M.D.



2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Area Office, SCO147, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

(Opposite parties)






O R D E R


1. This order shall dispose off an application moved by the opposite party for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation.

2. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties on this application and also perused the record.

3. Complainant in auction conducted by opposite party on 11.4.2006 purchased a Maruti Zen Car for Rs. 2,20,000/-, which amount he immediately deposited with the opposite party. At the time of sale, opposite party assured the complainant to deliver him documents of the vehicle regarding ownership within few days, so that complainant may get the vehicle registered in his name. Thereafter, several times approached the opposite party with request to deliver the documents to which they paid no heed and ultimately refused to deliver such documents. Then he served legal notice dated 6.1.2009 but despite it they failed to deliver the documents to the complainant.

4. It is as such apparent from the pleadings of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased on 11.4.2006 and opposite party had promised to handover documents pertaining to ownership within few days. It means, cause of action accrued to the complainant in April 2006 and within few days thereof when ownership documents were to be given to him. But they despite his attempts failed to provide him documents. As per pleadings, they refused to deliver the documents and then served legal notice dated 6.1.2009. As such, cause of action had commenced to the complainant on 11.4.2008 and within few days thereafter. But this complaint was instituted on 27.2.2009 i.e. after three years of the purchase. Whereas this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. No reasons have been given to explain the delay. Neither any prayer is made to condone the delay in filing the complaint.

5. It is as such clear that the complaint is barred by limitation being filed beyond limitation of two years. No reason has forth come to explain such delay in filing the complaint. Hence, we find merit in application of the opposite party and same is allowed. Consequently, complaint being time barred is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

COMPLAINANT:

1. Smt. Susheela,

W/o. Late A.S. Manjunath,

Aged about 46 years,

House wife,



2. M. Ranjith,

S/o. Late A.S. Manjunath,

Aged about 24 years,



3. M. Ranjini,

D/o. Late A.S. Manjunath,

Aged about 22 years,



All are residing at Palguni (v),

Banakal Hobli, Mudigere Taluk,

Chikmagalur District,

Karnataka State.




V/s

OPPONENTS:

1. Sri. M.K. Girish,

Sales Manager,

M/s. Bajaj Allianz Co. Ltd.,

Mathias Tower, I.G. Road,

CHIKMAGALUR CITY – 577 101.

Karnataka State.



2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General-

Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Branch Office, No.363,

Shri Hari Complex, Seetha Vilas Road,

M Y S O R E – 570 024.


- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The complainants have filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opponents for the deficiency of service in not settling the claim of own damage and personal accident benefit and prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with settlement of the claim as detailed in the complaint.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:-

Husband of the first complainant had a vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-18-9124 (APE PIAGGIO) and obtained policy from the opponents, which is valid from 21.02.2007 to 20.02.2008 and deceased husband of the complainant had also paid additional premium for personal accident benefits and the opponent has covered the risk for owner / driver in the policy. Such being the case, on 27.07.2007 a driver of the said Auto dashed with a rash and negligent near Rizwan Nursery, K.M. Road, Barghal, Kelagoor Village of Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk and the husband of the complainant, who was also travelling in the said Auto succumbed to death. The police have registered the case Crime No.99/2007. The complainant being a nominee to the policy has claimed for compensation against the opponents as the policy was in force at the time of accident. But the opponents sent a letter dtd.10.09.2008 repudiating the claim of the complainants and along with this repudiation, the opponent has also not settled the own damage claim of the complainants. The complainants have incurred nearly Rs.38,358/- for the repair of the said Auto. Thus, the opponents without any reason have repudiated the claim of the complainants. Hence, they are at deficiency of service and pray for the reliefs as referred above.

3. After service of the notice, the 2nd opponent has appeared through their counsel and filed version. But the 1st opponent has not appeared in person or through any representative. Hence, he is placed exparte.

4. The 2nd opponent in their version has contended that the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 Mr. A.S. Manjunath had taken a policy vide No.OG-07-1705-1803-00003388 for the period of 19.02.2007 to 18.02.2008. The original policy is in possession of the legal heirs of the insured. Hence, they urge for the production of the documents from the complainant’s side. They have collected Rs.100/- as additional premium towards personal accident and eligibility thereto is governed by Section 4 of the policy and maximum liability under this head is Rs.2,00,000/-.

SECTION IV – PERSONAL ACCIDENT COVER FOR OWNER-DRIVER.

This cover is subject to:

(a) The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;

(b) The owner-driver is the insured named in this policy.

(c) The owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident.

5. Therefore, if above three conditions are complied, the complainant can claim for personal accident benefit under the policy. The complainant No.1 has reported the accident and submitted a claim form. After intimation of the accident, they have appointed one Mr. Gopalakrishna, Independent IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor to inspect and prepare survey report. As such he submitted survey report on 19.10.2007 quantifying the damages caused to the vehicle at Rs.9754/- and they are restricted to the said amount payable to the complainant, if this Forum comes to conclusion that they are liable to pay the own damage claim. Subsequently, they investigated the matter through M/s. Pryman Detective Agency, Bangalore and they have submitted a report on 30.08.2008, wherein they have stated that the vehicle involved in an accident is a Goods Carrying Vehicle with a seating capacity of only one i.e., a driver as per the Registration Certificate and policy. It cannot carry any other person under law.


But as per the charge-sheet and investigation, the policy holder was travelling along with a driver seating next to the driving seat and met with an accident and subsequently died and there is a violation of Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and policy conditions. The insured travelled in the vehicle against to the terms and conditions of the policy and due to the said travelling the vehicle met with an accident. Hence, the insured A.S. Manjunath has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, they have repudiated the claim of the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency of service. Thus, the opponent prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The 1st complainant has filed her affidavit evidence as PW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.P1 to P15.

7. One Sri Jayashekara V.R., Legal Executive of the 2nd opponent company has also filed his affidavit evidence as RW.1 along with the documents and the same have been marked as Exs.R1 to R9.

8. We heard the arguments advanced by both the parties’ counsels.

9. Now, the points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opponent?

ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the

reliefs as sought?

iii) What Order?

10. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: In the Affirmative

ii) Point No.2: In the Affirmative

iii) Point No.3: See, as per order below



- ::: R E A S O N S ::: -

11. Point Nos.1 & 2: There is no dispute that the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and has obtained a policy from the 2nd opponent, which is valid from 19.02.2007 to 18.02.2008 and also no dispute that the vehicle was met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, who has driven the vehicle on 27.07.2007. It is also no dispute that the insured i.e., deceased husband of the complainant No.1 had paid additional premium of Rs.100/- towards the personal accident benefits in the policy to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The only dispute raised by the 2nd opponent is that the insured has violated the terms and conditions by travelling in the goods auto, which has no seating capacity of more than one. Hence, the personal accident benefit cannot be granted to the complainants and submitted that there is no deficiency of service. But they are ready to pay the own damage claim to the tune of Rs.9,754/- to the complainant as per the survey report.

12. On the otherhand, the complainants have insisted to claim a personal accident benefit to the tune of Rs.2,00,0000/- as the opponent has covered the risk of personal accident. In support of her claim, the complainant has produced F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.P2, the Form No.54 issued by police is marked as Ex.P1, Post Mortem Report is marked as Ex.P5, R.C. is in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant is marked as Ex.P6, Driving License of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, is marked as Ex.P7, Policy is marked as Ex.P8 and repudiation letter is marked as Ex.P9. She also issued a letter subsequently for claim, which is marked as Ex.P10.

13. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the deceased husband of the complainant died due to road accident, when he was travelling in his own goods auto, which was driven by one Mr. Raveesh, who was engaged by deceased owner of the vehicle to drive the said vehicle and on perusal of the Ex.P8 we came to know that the opponent has issued a policy in the name of deceased husband of A.S. Manjunath by collecting additional premium of Rs.100/- to cover the risk of personal accident. The opponent in his version contended that the vehicle is a goods auto, which has only one seating capacity, when there is only one seating capacity, there is no necessity of issuing indemnity to cover the risk of personal accident of both driver and owner, whereas in Ex.P8, they have covered the risk of both owner and driver. Such being the case, as per the condition No.4 of the policy, the driver who was involved in the accident had a valid driving licence to drive such vehicle, the same was produced before this Forum and the surveyor, who has submitted his report, which is marked at Ex.R1 was also noted that the driver has a valid driving licence to drive such vehicle, which was met with an accident.


As the condition of valid driving licence is fulfilled by the complainant, the repudiation made by the opponent for the personal accident benefits to the complainant is not justifiable. When they have covered the risk to the owner along with driver under personal accident benefits, they bound to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased insured. On perusal of the Post Mortem Report and Inquest produced by the complainant, we confirm that the complainants 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased insured. Hence, they are entitled to get the assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opponents under the policy issued.

.
The 2nd opponent has undertaken to pay Rs.9,754/- towards the own damages in version and affidavit. As such, the complainants are entitled to receive the said amount from the opponents. The opponents have rendered the deficiency of service in repudiating the claim without considering the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards the deficiency of service along with costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses. For the above said reasons, we answer the above point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

14. Point No.3: In view of our findings on above points the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed. In the result we pass the following order.



- :::O R D E R::: -

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

2. The opponents are hereby directed to pay sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- along with Rs.9,754/- towards the own damage claim as per the Policy bearing No.OG-07-1705-1803-00003388 to the complainants.

3. The opponents are also hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards the deficiency of service along with Rs.1,000/- as costs towards the litigation expenses.

4. The opponents shall comply the order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of default till realisation.

5. Send the copies of this order to the parties.

N. Krishnan

S/o. Nahalingam

D.No.35-N Vellai Thottam,

Ganapathy, Coimbatore. --- Complainant

Vs.

M/s. Bajaj Allianz,

General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rydon Private Ltd.,

671, Kalaikathir Building,

Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. --- Opposite Party


ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation under personal accident claim, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and tension, and towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainants son Raja @Pandiayaraja died in Motor Vehicle accident that took place on 16.11.2006 at about 9.30 A.M. The complainant son Raja @ Pandiayaraja drove the Motor bike bearing its registration Number TN.38 AH 6500 along with his friend Ramesh who was the pillion rider near Holy Trinity Nursery Primary School, Subbanaickenpudur, Thudialur from North to South on left side of the road by adhgering the traffic rules. The motor bike bearing Regn. No. TN 38 AH 6500 is insured with opposite party vide Policy Number G.071503180201011032. At the time of the accident the policy was in force. As per the terms of the policy the complainant is entitled for personal accident claim for death of his son.

2. Though the terms of the policy expressly cover any person including driver, the opposite party arbitrarily rejected the complainant’s claim. Therefore the complainant issued a lawyer notice dated 28.7.07 calling upon to settle the claim. However, the opposite party made a belated registered reply repudiating the claim. The opposite party received a sum of Rs.50/- towards Personal Accident cover any person including driver which covers for Rs.1,00,000/-. The act of the opposite party is a clearly deficiency in service. The complainants are very much aggrieved due to the mental tension since, the opposite party failed to settle the claim that too without any valid reason. The act of the opposite party rightly comes under the purview of the consumer protection Act as deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

The averments in the Written Version filed by the opposite party are as follows:

3. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. The Insurance Policy issued by this the opposite party in favour of the insured bears No. G 07 1503 1802 01011032 for the period from 20.7.06 to 19.7.07 is in the possession of the insured Shri P. Thangaraj. The aforesaid Motor Insurance Policy is made of the following three section with corresponding terms and conditions.

Section I This is not a mandatory cover but is optional. This covers the intrinsic value of the Motorcycle i.e. the Insured Declared Value (IDV) which in the present case is Rs.35,523/- towards the cost of any repair to the vehicle consequent upon any accidental damage or theft.

Section II This is mandatory cover as stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without t6his cover the vehicle cannot be used in any public place. This covers the liability of the insured towards any third party as envisaged by Sec.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This cover is granted only to satisfy the requirements of Chapter X and XI of the MV Act.

Section III This is not a mandatory cover but is optional. It is a pure contract between the insured and the insurer and if opted and if any premium is paid, such contract is governed by the corresponding terms and conditions incorporated in the policy only.

4. The Motorcycle being a private vehicle, it is not the requirement of Sec.147 to cover any liability of the owner for accidental injury or death of the rider or pillion –rider of the vehicle. Therefore, the policy issued to the Motorcycle No. TN 38 AH 6500 does not cover the rider. The claim of the complainant is not payable under the terms and conditions of the policy on account of the following reasons. The deceased Mr.Raja @ Pandiaraja is not the registered owner of the Motorcycle No. TN 38 AH 6500 and therefore there is no Personal Accident cover available for him under Section III of the policy. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

5. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A7 was marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B5 was marked on the side of the opposite party.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

6. This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant towards compensation under Personal Accident Claim.

7. The policy is in the name of P.Thangaraju as per the policy on payment of additional premium of Rs.50/- he has opted to take Personal Accident cover for himself while he drives the motor cycle TN 38AH 6500 towards accidental death or permanent disability for a capital sum of Rs.1 lakh subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per Section III Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver subject to terms and conditions.



This cover is subject to:-

a. the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein

b. the owner- driver is the insured named in this policy

c. the owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 at the time of the accident.

8. As per the abovesaid conditions the claim of the complainant is not payable for the following reasons:-

1. the deceased Raja @ Pandiaraja is not a registered owner of the motor cycle therefore there is no personal accident cover available for him under section III

2. the deceased Raja @ Pandiaraja is not a 3rd party to the motorcycle but he is a rider at the time of accident

3. the deceased was having only a owners license at the time of accident as per FIR, moreover he was carrying his friend as a pillion rider which is prohibited under M.V.Rules.

9. Therefore the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and in accordance with the provisions of law and the decision of the opposite party will not constitute any deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Gurmukh Singh son of Sh. Ajit Singh resident of village Mangli Nichi, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Krishna Bhawan, A-3, Janakpuri, New Delhi through its Manager.



2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.



3. M/s Modern Motors, Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, Ludhiana, through its branch Manager.

(Opposite parties)







O R D E R



1. Complainant being owner of Scorpio Jeep bearing registration no. PB-10BP-7209, chassis no.76634, engine no.41459, got the same insured with opposite parties no.2 and 3 vide cover note no. BZ-0800446278 bearing policy reference no.31283970, valid from 14.8.2008 to 13.8.2009. On 4.10.2008, to rectify some problem, vehicle was taken by the complainant to workshop of opposite party no.3-authorised dealer of Mohindra and Mohindra Limited. Job card no.2069 dated 4.10.2008 was prepared by opposite party no.3. Mechanic of opposite party no.3 after repairing the vehicle, took it for test drive. During test drive, the vehicle caught fire and it was totally damaged on 4.10.2008.


Opposite parties no.1 & 2 were accordingly intimated and claim lodged, but till now they have failed to release the insurance amount of the vehicle, which was totally damaged. Therefore, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant claims that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay total price of the jeep amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- but they have been evading his claim. In addition to this would also be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.

2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in reply admitted insuring jeep of the complainant. But averred that claim on account of damage to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant, was scrutinized and it was subsequently repudiated as ‘No Claim’, vide letter dated 15.11.2008. Because, complainant had failed to send reply to letter dated 18.11.2008 and on account of non submission of letter of subrogation. Further claimed that loss to the vehicle occurred when it was in the workshop and during repair.


So, it would be responsibility of opposite party no.3 to pay the amount of loss, if any, to the complainant. They are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. On claim being lodged, Sh. G.S. Sohal Surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.2,50,041/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.11.2008, complainant was called to furnish letter of subrogation, which he failed to furnish.

3. Opposite party no.3 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded ex-parte.

4. In order to prove their respective, parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Though both the parties have led evidence and produced documents, but we need not to detain ourselves any more, as the dispute stand restricted to shorter compass. Because insuring his vehicle under the cover note Ex.C.2 and lodging claim after such damage due to fire by the complainant vide claim form Ex.C.5 and getting surveyor appointed who submitted report Ex.R.2 are not in dispute. Also not in dispute that vide job card Ex.C.3 the vehicle was handed over by the complainant in the workshop of opposite party no.3 on 4.10.2008.

7. Opposite parties-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.R1 dated 25.11.2008 due to non compliance of their registered letter dated 18.11.2008. Ex.R15 is the copy of the letter dated 18.11.2008 issued to complainant by the opposite party. This letter is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience for understanding the dispute:

“We acknowledge the receipt of your Motor Claim intimation with regard to the captioned subject. In this regard we want some requirements to be fulfilled by you, which are mentioned below:

As per claim form submitted by your goodself & required documents, it is observed that you had given your vehicle for service work at M/s Modern Motors, Ludhiana. At the time of test drive of the vehicle, suddenly vehicle caught fire and damaged.

It was the contractual liability of the workshop to care your vehicle till delivery of the vehicle in same condition. Kindly provide us the subrogation, so that we can proceed for the claim recovery from M/s Modern Motors Ltd.

Kindly comply with the aforesaid requirements within seven days of the receipt of this letter.

For any further clarification please feel free to contact us.”



8. So, opposite parties no.1 & 2 required of the complainant to provide them letter of subrogation so as to enable them to proceed for the claim recovery from M/s Modern Motors ltd.-OP No.3. Because, according to them opposite party no.3 had entered into a contractual liability with the complainant till delivery of the vehicle in same condition. Complainant failed to provide such subrogation letter resulting in repudiating the claim vide letter Ex.R.1.

9. Hon’ble National Commission in case Dijabar Sahoo Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2008) CPJ 307 (NC) in such scenario where claim of the insured was closed as No Claim has affirmed the order of the Consumer Fora directing the insured to provide required documents to the insurer who was ordered to settle claim within six weeks from the receipt of documents.

10. In case Kanhu Charan Nanda Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1 (1995) CPJ 327 Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, where the vehicle met with an accident and the insurer had engaged surveyor who assessed damage and required insured to produce certain documents which were not produced by him. Same was held not amounting to deficiency in service.

11. In the instant case also claim of the complainant was repudiated and filed as No Claim because he failed to provide letter of subrogation to opposite party no.1 & 2. By not producing such documents, opposite parties can not be termed guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice. In view of this matter, we feel that complainant has no redress able grievance against the opposite parties no.1 & 2.

12. But in the ends of justice, we pass order directing complainant to provide letter of subrogation to opposite parties no.1 & 2 as demanded by them under letter Ex. R.5 dated 18.11.2008 and on providing of such letter of subrogation by the complainant, opposite parties no.1 & 2 directed to settle the claim of the complainant under the terms and conditions of the policy, within 45 days of the receipt of such letter of subrogation. Parties left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free f costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

M.G.Ramesh, S/o Sri G.Rajendran, Hindu,

Aged about 38 years, Business,

Residing at 10-491, Gokulam Street,

Chittoor District – 517001.
… Complainant

And



1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Having its Registered office at GE Plaza,

Airport Road, Yerrawada, Pune – 411006.



2. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager,

No. 27-126, GVR Enclave, Trunk Road,

Nellore, AP.



… Opposite Parties.






ORDER







This is a complaint filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- being the insurance amount for the total loss of the car. Rs.57,329/- towards interest paid by the complainant after the accident, Rs. 15,577/- of future loss to be suffered by him and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and costs of the complaint.



The complainant submits that he purchased a second hand car TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from one Mrs. N.P. Jhansi Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20-02-2007. The said car was insured for Rs.2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 22-09-2006 to 22-09-2007. The complainant submits that he purchased the car by obtaining car loan of Rs.3,45,600 (Rs.2,60,000/- of Principal Loan + Rs.85,600/- of Interest) from HDFC Bank to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of Rs.7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007, the said car was totally destroyed in a fire accident while it was kept parked in a car-parking shed at Chittoor. The complainant intimated the said fact to 1st opposite party Branch Office at Chennai who deputed their surveyor and the said surveyor inspected the spot and assessed the loss.


The F.I.R. copy, news paper report clippings, and Fire attendance certificate are filed herewith. The complainant submits that the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of this complainant in its letter dated 11-03-2007 stating that their contract is only with the previous owner of the car but not with the complainant. The complainant submits that he had no idea that he should transfer his Insurance policy onto his name. He was under impression, that after the due registration of transfer of ownership of the car with Regional Transport Authority, all the formalities of transfer were over.


As Insurance policy was subsisting till 22-09-2007, he was under impression that he was under its coverage. He issued legal notice dated 19.01.2009 to the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party did not reply. Therefore he filed this complaint claiming insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- for the loss of the car, Rs.57,329/- towards interest after the accident and Rs.15,577/- towards future loss of interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. The claim of the complainant may be allowed with interest at 24% p.a. and costs for the complaint.







The 1st opposite party filed written version alleging that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Sec. 2(d) of C.P.Act and the petition filed by the complainant does not come under the purview of Consumer dispute as envisaged in Sec.2(e) of the Act. This opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 since the interest of one Smt N.P.Jhanshi Lakshmi is covered under the policy No. OG – 07 – 1506 – 1801 – 00007600 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007. The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the above said car by the complainant and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party does not admit that on 23.09.2007, the above said car was totally destroyed in fire accident while it was kept parked at car parking shed at Chittoor.


There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim made by the complainant is repudiated in its letter dated 11.03.2007. The 1st opposite party submits that their lordships of Supreme Court held in the judgment reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court that the purchaser of the vehicle cannot agitate his claim for own damages of the vehicle purchased by him if the policy is not transferred in his name as the provisions of Sec.157 of M.V.Act are applicable for the claim made by the 3rd parties only, but not transferee of the Vehicle claiming own damages of the claims.



This opposite party submits that 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 transferee’s 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. This opposite party further submits that there is no cause of action for this complainant to file the complaint.

This opposite party further submits that the amount claimed by the complainant is highly excesive, exorbitant and without proportion to the loss sustained by him.

Under the circumstances this opposite party prays that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint made by the complainant with costs in the interest of justice.





The 2nd opposite party filed written version alleging that the allegation that the complainant purchased a second hand car and that the said policy duly insured with the 1st opposite party may be true. The further allegations that the complainant obtained the loan as “Used car loan” is true and correct and he has to pay regular monthly installments to this opposite party. This opposite party submits that the said car was destroyed due to fire accident while it was parked. This opposite party was unnecessarily added to the present proceedings and the present complaint against this opposite party may be dismissed with exemplary cost.



On the basis of the pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.2,85,000/- is not legal? If so, whether the 1st opposite party committed deficiency in service?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- interest amounts of Rs.57,329/- and Rs.15,577/-?



3) Whether the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-

together with interest at 24% P.A. for mental agony?



4) To what relief?





The complainant filed chief affidavit of Pw.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A13

and the opposite parties filed chief affidavit of Rw.1 and Rw.2.



Points No.1 to 3:-



The case of the complainant is that he purchased second hand TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from Mrs. N.P.Jhancy Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20.02.2007. The said car was insured for Rs. 2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007.



The complainant submits that he purchased a car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000 + Rs. 85,600 (Interest) from 2nd opposite party to be repudiated in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007 the said car was totally destroyed in the fire accident, when it was kept parked in a car parking shed at Chittoor. The complainant intimated the said fact to the 1st opposite party branch office at Chennai. The complainant submitted the required documents viz., copy of F.I.R, News Paper Report clippings and fire attendance certificate to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance policy in his name and there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the complainant.



The complainant submits that after purchase of the vehicle and after transfer of his name in the R.C Book the transfer of Insurance Policy is automatic and he is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/-. The 1st opposite party committed deficiency of service and the complaint may be allowed.



The opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889, since the interest of one Mrs. N.P.Jansy Lakshmi is covered under the policy. The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the said car by the complainant and it does not admit that the said car was totally destroyed in fire accident. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim of the complainant is repudiated in its letter dt. 11.03.2007. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a second hand car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the complainant got transferred the ownership of the car in his name in the R.C Book, but failed to get transferred the Insurance policy Ex.A1 in his name.



It is also admitted fact that the original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi obtained Ex.A1 Insurance Policy for Rs. 2,85,000/- and the policy is subsisting. It is also admitted fact that the said car totally burnt in the fire accident and the 1st opposite party did not settle his claim and repudiated the same.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that he purchased the second hand car for Rs. 2,85,000/-, after he purchased the same the said car was destroyed in the fire accident within 37 days and the said fact was informed to the 1st opposite party the 1st opposite party deputed its surveyor and got assessed the damages of the vehicle.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant submitted relevant documents, such as copy of F.I.R, Fire Services Attendance services, original clippings of News Paper Reports and copy of complaint Ex.A3 to A5 and Ex.A9 to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party has not settled his claim of Rs. 2,85,000/- and repudiated the same in its letter Ex.A9 on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance Policy Ex.A1 in his name, after purchase of the second hand car and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the 1st opposite party cannot reject his claim. On account of rejection of his claim he was forced to pay interest of Rs. 57,329/- to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was put to hardship and harassment by the 1st opposite party and committed deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming total insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- and interest of Rs. 57,329/- and future interest of Rs. 15,577/- and compensation for mental agony of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the 1st opposite party and the complaint may be allowed.



The learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party marked the Chief Affidavit of RW-2 and submitted that the 2nd opposite party has only interest in the matter to recover the debt from the complainant. Inspite of granting sufficient time the 1st opposite party and its counsel are not present. After hearing both the complainant and 2nd opposite party, this Forum proceeded to decide this matter. This Forum also considered the Written Version of 1st opposite party and its Written Arguments and decisions submitted by it.



The 1st opposite party in its Written Version submitted that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 under Insurance Policy Ex.A1. The interest of original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi is covered under Insurance policy Ex.A1 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007. The claim made by the complainant is repudiated by its letter dt. 11.03.2007 Ex.A9. Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



The only point involved in this case is that whether the complainant can claim the Insurance amount inspite of the fact that he did not get transferred the insurance policy in his name within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle U/Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the provision U/Sec. 157 of M.V.Act is applicable in respect of third party risks only. It is not applicable to the complainant for his own damage. He also submits that G.R.10 of Motor Tariff Regulations relating to transfer of vehicles directed the Insurance companies to honour the full claim of the transferees.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the complainant purchased the vehicle, the transfer of Insurance policy is automatic and the Insurer cannot repudiate his claim to that effect. He further contends that the National Commission in its Judgment in R.P.No.556/2002 between Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd held that the Insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle can not be transferred in favour of the complainant. Therefore he contends that the repudiation of his claim by the opposite party No.1 is not proper and the complainant is entitled to the same.



The opposite party No.1 filed its written arguments contending that ignorance of law is of no excuse. It is also contended that the provisions of Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act clearly says that a duty is cast upon the transferee of a motor vehicle to get the insurance policy transferred in his name.



The complainant has not transferred the Insurance Policy in his name within 14 days under Sec.157 (2) of M.V.Act. There is no provity of contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party. It is also contended that their lordships in AIR 1996 – S.C – Page No. 586 between M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., held that :-



“….The requirements of Chapter XI are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (Form 51 Prescribed under 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks only…..



…….The transferee of the vehicle could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risk 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 is transferred”…….



…….The insurance company did not reply to the two letters sent by transferee. In the meanwhile the vehicle met with a serious accident. The transferee asked for the assessment of the damage as the vehicle was a total loss. There was no agreement between the Insurance and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk.



…….The farmer undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 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.



He also relied on the decision reported in NC Judgment in R.P.No. 426 /07 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri V.C.Deenadayal and another wherein their lordships held that

“…..Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the insurance company within 14 days of its purchase under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case. After purchase of vehicle, the insurance policy has been renewed twice. In the circumstances it is represented that the complainants dishonestly combined in the name of complainant No.1 and dishonestly claimed ‘no claim bonus’. The real owner complainant had neither registration in her name nor insurance. She has no insurable interest nor privity of contract with petitioner. The original owner cannot maintain any claim against insurance.”













The facts of the above cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision reported in National Commission in R.P.No.556 /2002 wherein their lordships considered the decision rendered in A.I.R- 1996 SC Pg.586 and held as follows :-



“….On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement.



If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs.15/-. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate.”



It appears that in a number of cases Insurance Companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferees of the vehicle because the transferees were not having any insurable interest.”













Their lordships further held as follows:

“….As stated above, the second ground given by the State Commission cannot be justified in view of the India Motor Tariff Regulation. Further, on this aspect, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced on record the judgement rendered by the Chattisgarh State Commission in the case of “Ajimuddin Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd” reported in 2006 (2) CPR 124 wherein the Commission has observed in paragraph 7 as under:



Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that GIC has issued special instructions regarding statement of claim in case of transfer of policy. It was submitted that as per the said instructions the transfer of policy in favour of the purchaser the Comlainant/Appellant should be treated as automatic. It appears that the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle. In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete insulations (P) Ltd. V.New India Assurnce Co.Ltd. was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR 10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy.”



In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the Complainant.”







The Hon’ble National Commission considered the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in A.I.R -1996 (S.C) – Page 586 and also the G.R.10 of the Motor Tariff Regulations and came to conclusion that the insurance company ought not have rejected the claim of the transferee. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission, cited supra, I am of the opinion that the 1st opposite party cannot reject the claim of the complainant and it amounts deficiency in service. This point is answered in favour of the complainant.

The next point to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled to the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- mentioned in the Insurance policy Ex.A1.



The complainant in his written arguments submitted that the original owner Smt. Jhansy Lakshmi obtained Insurance policy and the ID value mentioned therein was Rs.2,85,000/-. He also submits that he obtained used car loan of Rs.2,85,000/- and purchased the second hand Indica Car No. A.P.03 P 7889. The said vehicle was destroyed in a fire accident and he claims the entire ID value of Rs. 2,85,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A1 and the same may be allowed to him.


The opposite party has not disputed the value of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party pleaded total ignorance regarding the fire accident to the vehicle. It was silent regarding the damage of the vehicle and the claim putforth by the complainant. When the 1st opposite party has not opposed the claim of the complainant in their written version as well as in written arguments, this Forum allows the claim of the complainant. Further the complainant drew may attention to the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.A1 under the head” sum insured – Insured declared value and submits that ID value shall be treated as market value without any further depression for the purchase of total loss as mentioned in the certificate of insurance policy, it reads as follows :-

“IDV shall be treated as the ‘Market Value’ throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL)/ Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims.”



The complaint is allowed for Rs.2,85,000/- and the same is granted to him. The complainant is claiming Rs.57,329/- towards interest amount for the period from 07.04.2002 to 07.02.2009 as the 1st opposite party has not settled his claim and the same is disallowed. Since the complainant is granted the entire I.D value mentioned in Ex.A1, the complainant is not entitled to future interest amount of Rs.15,577/-. The complainant claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and the same is disallowed. Thus the claims of the complainant regarding interest amount of Rs.57,329/-, Rs.15,577/- and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- are disallowed.



Point No.4:-

In the result the complaint is allowed for Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty five thousand only). The 1st Opposite Party is directed to pay the Insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty five thousand only) within 6 weeks from the date of this order, failing which it carries interest at 9% P.A. The complaint is dismissed for Rs. 57,329/-, Rs. 15,577/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) is allowed towards costs of the complaint.

Harnek Saggu son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident f H. No.271, St. No.11, Mair Colony, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Registered office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, armada, Pune-411006, Maharashtra through M.D.



2. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Feroze Gandhi market, Ludhiana through Manager.



3. United Motors, Opp. Medi City, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.



4. ICICI Bank Ltd. Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its branch manager.(Deleted vide order dated 4.3.2009)

(Opposite parties)







O R D E R



1. Complainant after purchase on 13.3.2006 Tata Indigo car, got it registered vide registration no. PB-10-BV-0570 and obtained comprehensive insurance policy vide cover note no. PC0610795079 and policy no. OG-08-1001-1801-000038, valid from 6.5.2007 to 5.5.2008. The car on 6.7.2007, in Rajasthan, when the complainant was coming from Jaipur to Delhi, met with an accident when the car was struck by Rajasthan Roadways Bus, causing extensive damage to the vehicle. DDR No.20 dated 6.7.2007 was entered in P.S. Shahpura, Jaipur. Opposite party immediately was intimated qua accident vide rapat no.1765032. On reaching Ludhiana, Sh. Sunil, agent of opposite party was telephonically contacted and on his instructions took the vehicle to opposite party no.3-United Motors, for repair. Opposite party no.3 agreed to return the vehicle within 10 days after repair. But they failed to return the vehicle despite repeated visits and calls given to them, forcing issuance of letter dated 17.9.2007 and e-mails dated 18.9.2007 and 28.9.2007 to opposite party no.1.


Third e-mail on 22.10.2007 was issued to opposite party no.1 but without any effect. Such act of opposite party was resorting to unfair trade practice causing monetary loss to the complainant. Warranty period of the car also lapsed on 12.9.2007 depriving the complainant from availing warranty benefits from the manufacturer of the car-Tata Motors. For such deficiency has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- due to non delivery of the vehicle and another 5,00,000/- for physical loss and Rs.4,23,000/- cost of the car along with compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in joint reply pleaded that complaint is not maintainable, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. It is conceded that complainant got his vehicle insured with them and that he had lodged claim qua damage to the vehicle. As per terms and conditions of the policy, amount of claim was cashless reimbursement and the amount was repayable to the repairer and not to the insured qua amount assessed by the surveyor to be appointed by the opposite party. On receipt of the claim, it was registered, entertained and processed.


The claim was settled for Rs. 46,373/- as assessed by Sh. Chander Mohan Surveyor & Loss Assessor vide report dated 17.8.2007. The amount was directly paid to opposite party no.3. Complainant even issued the claim disbursement satisfaction voucher to that effect by accepting the amount of Rs.46,373/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Surveyor had assessed the loss properly under terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant is not entitled to any further amount. They have fully discharged their responsibility under the insurance policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Opposite party no.3-United Motors vide separate reply also took objection qua jurisdiction of the Fora and that complainant by own act and conduct is estopped to file the complaint. Complainant concealed the material facts from the Fora as he had filed a complaint before Insurance Ombudsman, who dismissed the same vide order dated 23.4.2008. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 on behalf of the complainant paid Rs. 46,373/- to them, so, the complaint is not maintainable. Rs.46,373/- were received against invoice dated 17.8.2007 worth Rs.61,087.50p, total amount recoverable from the complainant. Complainant is liable to pay the parking charges of the vehicle.


They have denied accidental theory as proponded by the complainant. Further denied that they had informed the complainant that the vehicle after repair would be ready for delivery within 10 days. Car after repair was ready on 16.8.2007 and the complainant was informed to take delivery of the vehicle. Several times he was intimated telephonically to take back his vehicle after repair after making balance payment of Rs. 14,714.50p. Qua it, letters dated 30.9.2007 and 20.10.2007 were also sent to the complainant. For reasons best known to him, he failed to take delivery of the vehicle. So, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or relief.

4. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Not in dispute that the complainant being owner of the vehicle got it insured vide cover note Ex.C.2 with the opposite parties no.1 & 2 and obtained insurance of the vehicle from 6.5.2007 to 5.5.2008. When the vehicle met with an accident, had lodged report (Ex.C.30 dated 6.10-.2007 in P.S. Shahpura, Rajasthan. Damaged vehicle for repair was sent by the complainant to opposite party no.3 who after repair issued retail invoice Ex.R.5 , raising bill of Rs. 61,087.50p for repair of the vehicle. Out of this repair amount, opposite party no.3 directly got a sum of Rs. 46,373/- from opposite party. Then complainant also executed receipt Ex.R.3 in favour of opposite party no.1 after receipt of Rs.46,373/- as full and final settlement with respect to his claim.

7. Where the insured had received under the insurance claim any amount and executed the receipt in favour of the Insurance Company as full and final settlement of his claim, he would be debarred from seeking further relief or amount from the Insurance Company. In support of such legal proposition, we relied on cases Savitri Salt Suppliers V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2009) CPJ 223 (Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala); Jiyajeerao Cotton mills Ltd. Vs. new India Assurance Co. ltd. 1 (1992) CPJ 292 (Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) ; National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 1 (2009) CPJ 292 ( Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi); II (2008) CPJ 319 (NC) titled as Vishnu Tex Vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Anr. (Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and IV (2005) CPJ 414, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shasheenkhan Mubassir Alam Khan (Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.

8. In the instant case, no element of fraud is alleged by the complainant in obtaining full and final settlement receipt Ex.R.3 by the complainant when amount of Rs.46,373/- was paid by opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.3 when damaged vehicle was got repaired by the complainant. Therefore, after having received amount without protest as full and final settlement of his claim, complainant in our view would be estopped from claiming any further amount from the opposite party.

9. It is also established that complainant feeling aggrieved with receipt of amount of Rs.46,373/- approached Insurance ombudsman, who vide order Ex.R.5 dated 23.4.2008 found no merit in his allegations and advised the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle by paying depreciation and car parking charges to opposite party no.3. This aspect was suppressed by the complainant from his complaint. Moreover, amount of damage to car of the complainant was paid as assessed by the surveyor Sh. Chander Mohan vide his report Ex.R.13 and R14. Amount of Rs.46,373.50p was found payable under the policy to the complainant, which was paid to opposite party no.3, qua which the complainant gave full and final receipt to opposite party no.1.

10. Though opposite party no.3 had prepared retail invoice Ex.R.5 by raising Rs.61,087.50p for repair of accidental vehicle of the complainant. Out of which, surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss at Rs. 46,373.50p payable.

11. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant has unnecessarily dragged them in litigation by filing the present complaint. In fact, it appears that dispute is between the complainant and opposite party no.3 who has kept the vehicle with them, due to failure of the complainant to pay balance cost of repair amount of Rs.14,714.50p and failure to pay the parking charges of the vehicle to them. Though, opposite party no.3 had called upon the complainant vide letter Ex.R.6 dated 20.10.2007 sent through courier receipt Ex.R.7 and letter R.9 dated 30.9.2007 sent through courier receipt Ex.R10 to lift his vehicle after paying balance repair amount etc. to them. The Insurance Ombudsman vide his order dated 23.4.2008 had also advised the complainant to clear the bill of opposite party no.3 to lift the vehicle.

12. In these circumstances, it appears that the complainant is not able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of either of the opposite parties. Rather, he himself is guilty of not paying balance payment to opposite party no.3-United Motors for lifting the vehicle by paying their due charges. Consequently, we find no merit in the complaint and as such the same being without any merit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

Ashok Kumar s/o late Sh. Hem Raj c/o M/s Hem Raj, Ashok Kumar, Main Bazar, Bhawani Garh, Tehsil & Distt. Sangrur.



…..Complainant.

Versus



Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 147, Feroze Gandhi

Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party.










O R D E R










1- Sh. Hem Raj father of the complainant was registered owner of car bearing no.PB-13L-4809, who died on 10.12.2005. After expiry of earlier insurance policy of the car, it was got insured by the complainant from the opposite party. While getting insurance policy for the car, complainant had disclosed to opposite party that his father had died on 10.12.2005 and requested them to issue insurance policy in his name. But opposite party issued cover note in the name of his deceased father. Consequently, made a written request vide letter dated 8.11.2006 to opposite party, requesting to issue cover note of the car in his own name and make necessary correction in the cover note.


Unfortunately, insured car on 18.4.2007 met with an accident and damage claim was lodged with the opposite party, under the policy which was valid from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. Opposite party subsequehtly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 22.6.2007, on the ground that policy was in the name of Sh. Hem Raj, who had died on 10.12.2005 and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the same had lapsed. Within three months of death of insured, the policy was not got transferred by legal heirs in their name, so, claim not maintainable. This repudiation stands assailed to be null, void and illegal in the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and claimed damages of Rs.1,67,600/- suffered by the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs Rs.10,000/-.

2- Opposite party contested the complaint, on ground that one Sanjeev Kumar approached them with claim for loss caused to the vehicle, due to an accident occurred on 18.4.2007. After receiving the claim application on 21.5.2008, they promptly under guidelines of IRDA and after going through the record and report of investigator, found that Sh. Hem Raj was owner of the vehicle. He had died on 10.12.2005. Legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Hem Raj had not approached the insurance company, within three months from the date of death of policy holder, to get it transferred in their name. So, claim was rejected and intimated to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, vide letter dated 22.6.2007. They have also taken objection that complaint is baseless, complainant is not a consumer.

3- To prove their respective pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and stood heard through their counsels.

4- The facts which are emerging and relevant for consideration are that Sh. Hem Ran father of the complainant was owner of the vehicle no.PB-13L-4809. Sh. Hem Raj died on 10.12.2005. Qua the damage to the car, in an accident on 18.4.2007, claim was lodged with opposite party under policy valid from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. But the claim was repudiated, on the ground that the policy was not got transferred by legal heirs of Sh. Hem Raj, in their favour. So, claim not maintainable.

5- Outrightly, we may venture to record that repudiation of the claim by opposite party is not at all justified and maintainable. Because insurance of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant w.e.f. 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. This happened after death of original owner Sh. Hem Raj, who had died on 10.12.2005.


It means after death of Sh. Hem Raj, policy (Ex.C3) w.e.f. 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007 was issued in the name of deceased Sh. Hem Raj. Ex.C3 also contains reference that previous policy of the vehicle expired on 3.11.2006. It means it was renewal of the previous policy of the car which again was issued in the name of Sh. Hem Raj, though he was dead on that day. Complainant vide communication Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006 had requested and conveyed opposite party, having received cover note no.10002859735 qua the vehicle issued in the name of Sh. Hem Raj. He brought to notice of opposite party that had already told their development officer, while getting insurance of the vehicle done that his father Sh. Hem Raj had already expired on 10.12.2005.


Request was made to issue cover note and insurance policy in his name, as he has paid the premium. Further, it was brought to notice that under the Will of his father, had become owner of the car, but mistake was done by opposite party while issuing policy in the name of his father. He then prayed for correction of mistake in the cover note and issuance of insurance policy in his own name. This communication Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006 was received by the opposite party, as it contains official stamp of the opposite party. So, means the letter was delivered by hand by the complainant to opposite party.

6- Letter Ex.C18 leaves us in no doubt that after death of his father, when complainant got renewal of insurance policy from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007, had pointed to development officer of the opposite party that his father Sh. Hem Raj was dead and cover note and policy be issued in his name. But when it was issued in the name of his father, he requested vide letter Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006, for correction of the mistake in the cover note and issuance of policy in his favour. Emphatically apparent that policy which was valid through lifetime of Sh. Hem Raj recorded owner of the vehicle, had lapsed.


So, there was no question for applying for transfer of that policy within three months of death of policy holder, in the name of LRs. Such condition of the insurance policy has wrongly been relied by opposite party, to repudiate the claim. As such condition won’t be applicable to the case in hand. As that earlier policy in the name of original owner, had lapsed. Thereafter, complainant took fresh policy, insuring the vehicle and requested to insure the vehicle in his own name. But development officer of opposite party instead issued cover note in the name of Sh. Hem Raj deceased father of the complainant, who was already dead on that day.

7- Sequel to the discussions, it is apparent that claim had wrongly and illegally been repudiated by opposite party. So, they certainly would be guilty of mis-conduct of not rendering proper services to its own consumer.

8- Therefore, we allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party to settle damage claim to the vehicle of the complainant, taking as if it was insured in the name of complainant and then settle damage claim of the complainant, in terms and conditions of the policy, within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. For thrusting this unavoidable litigation on the complainant, opposite party ordered to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

Ravinder Singh son of Sh Harjinder Singh resident of St No.18, Mohalla Roop Nagar, Hoshiarpur.




Complainant


vs.



Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. branch at Jail Road, Hoshiarpur through its Branch Manager.


Opposite party


1.

The complainant namely Ravinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Max Pick Up bearing registration no. PB 07-R-0319, which was insured with the OP from 11.3.2008 to 10.3.2009.
2.

It is the case of the complainant that the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.7.2008 at Chohal. The vehicle got damaged in the accident. The claim was lodged with the OP. The necessary documents for settlement of the claim were submitted with Insurance Company. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.63,000/- on the repair of the vehicle but the OP paid only Rs.15532/- through cheque dated 24.7.2008, which was received under protest.
3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that the OP is liable to pay the entire claim amount of Rs.63,000/- . The complainant made a request to the OP to pay the balance amount, spent on the repair of the vehicle but of no consequences. The complainant served a legal notice dated 16.8.2008 to the OP, which was duly received on 30.8.2008.
4.

OP filed the reply Preliminary objections vis a vis maintainability, jurisdiction, estoppel and non joinder of necessary parties were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the claim of the complainant has already been settled at Rs.15,532/-, as assessed by the approved surveyor and the payment had been made vide cheque no. 201716 dated 24.7.2008 payable at HDFC Bank . The said cheque has been received by the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim. It is denied that the complainant had spent Rs.63,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. It is also denied that the complainant received the said cheque of Rs.15,532/- under protest. It is further replied that after the intimation of the accident, the OP deputed Sh S.S.Notra- surveyor to assess the loss and as per his report dated 10.7.2008, the vehicle suffered damage to the extent of Rs.15,382/- and the claim was settled accordingly.
5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of- Sanjiv Ex. C-1, Vinod Kumar Ex. C-2, Ajit Singh Ex.C-3, Sarwan Singh Ex. C-4, Mohinder Singh Ex.C-5, Deep Singh Ex. C-6, Raj Kumar Ex. C-7, Sanjiv Kumar Ex. C-8, complainant Ex. C-9, insurance cover note Mark C-10, RC Mark C-11, estimate Mark C-12, bills of- Rs.4300/- Mark C-13, Rs.1200/- Mark C-14, Rs.4200/- Mark C-15, Rs.2503/- Mark C-16,Rs.7540/- Mark C-17, Rs.15,000/- Mark C-18, Rs.15,000/- Mark C-19, Rs.14,000/- Mark C-20, letter dated 16.8.2008 Ex. C-21, postal receipts Ex. C-22, C-23 and cheque of Rs.15532/- Mark C-24 and closed the evidence.
6.

In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Koul Ex. OP-1, affidavit of S.S.Notra Ex. OP-2, insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex. OP-3, survey report dated 10.7.2008 Ex. OP-4, discharge voucher Ex. OP-5, copy of cheque of Rs.15532.- Mark OP-6 and closed the evidence,
7.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
8.

Ex. OP-5 is a receipt/discharge voucher amounting to Rs.15,382/-. The said amount of Rs.15,382/- has been paid by the opposite party to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim under policy No.0616407092 in respect of vehicle no.PB 07-R-0319,M/Max Pick Up.
9.

Now it is established on record that the complainant had received the amount of Rs 15,382/- in full and final settlement of the claim from the opposite party under policy no. 0616407092 .. That despite of execution of a discharge voucher qua Ex.OP-5, there is no allegation of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation from the side of the complainant. It means that the said receipt/ discharge voucher amounting to Rs 15,382/- had not been obtained by the opposite party from the complainant by exercising fraud, undue influence or by misrepresentation. It is also proved that the complainant while receiving the said amount gave a clean discharge to the opposite party without any qualification, signifying its receipt in full and final settlement of the claim. Reliance placed on 2006, CTJ , 1065( Supreme Court)(CP) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd.
10.

Now, the next question to be considered is as to whether after giving a clean discharge receipt by accepting the amount of Rs.15,382/- and signing the voucher, the complainant can maintain the present complaint. The answer to this is in the negative. As already noticed, the payment of Rs.15,382 /- has been made by the opposite party to the complainant and the complainant gave a clean discharge to the opposite party without any qualification and in token thereof issued the receipt in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.
11.

Since, the complaint is liable to fail on this sole ground discussed in para supra, therefore, it will be a vain attempt to go into the other aspects of the matter on merits, as such, it is held that the claim was finally settled qua receipt/ discharge voucher, Ex.OP-5, thus, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is also proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

Gurmukh Singh son of Sh. Ajit Singh resident of village Mangli Nichi, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, Krishna Bhawan, A-3, Janakpuri, New Delhi through its Manager.



2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.



3. M/s Modern Motors, Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, Ludhiana, through its branch Manager.

(Opposite parties)





O R D E R




1. Complainant being owner of Scorpio Jeep bearing registration no. PB-10BP-7209, chassis no.76634, engine no.41459, got the same insured with opposite parties no.2 and 3 vide cover note no. BZ-0800446278 bearing policy reference no.31283970, valid from 14.8.2008 to 13.8.2009. On 4.10.2008, to rectify some problem, vehicle was taken by the complainant to workshop of opposite party no.3-authorised dealer of Mohindra and Mohindra Limited. Job card no.2069 dated 4.10.2008 was prepared by opposite party no.3. Mechanic of opposite party no.3 after repairing the vehicle, took it for test drive. During test drive, the vehicle caught fire and it was totally damaged on 4.10.2008.


Opposite parties no.1 & 2 were accordingly intimated and claim lodged, but till now they have failed to release the insurance amount of the vehicle, which was totally damaged. Therefore, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant claims that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay total price of the jeep amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- but they have been evading his claim. In addition to this would also be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.

2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in reply admitted insuring jeep of the complainant. But averred that claim on account of damage to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant, was scrutinized and it was subsequently repudiated as ‘No Claim’, vide letter dated 15.11.2008. Because, complainant had failed to send reply to letter dated 18.11.2008 and on account of non submission of letter of subrogation. Further claimed that loss to the vehicle occurred when it was in the workshop and during repair.


So, it would be responsibility of opposite party no.3 to pay the amount of loss, if any, to the complainant. They are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. On claim being lodged, Sh. G.S. Sohal Surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.2,50,041/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.11.2008, complainant was called to furnish letter of subrogation, which he failed to furnish.

3. Opposite party no.3 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded ex-parte.

4. In order to prove their respective, parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Though both the parties have led evidence and produced documents, but we need not to detain ourselves any more, as the dispute stand restricted to shorter compass. Because insuring his vehicle under the cover note Ex.C.2 and lodging claim after such damage due to fire by the complainant vide claim form Ex.C.5 and getting surveyor appointed who submitted report Ex.R.2 are not in dispute. Also not in dispute that vide job card Ex.C.3 the vehicle was handed over by the complainant in the workshop of opposite party no.3 on 4.10.2008.

7. Opposite parties-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.R1 dated 25.11.2008 due to non compliance of their registered letter dated 18.11.2008. Ex.R15 is the copy of the letter dated 18.11.2008 issued to complainant by the opposite party. This letter is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience for understanding the dispute:

“We acknowledge the receipt of your Motor Claim intimation with regard to the captioned subject. In this regard we want some requirements to be fulfilled by you, which are mentioned below:

As per claim form submitted by your goodself & required documents, it is observed that you had given your vehicle for service work at M/s Modern Motors, Ludhiana. At the time of test drive of the vehicle, suddenly vehicle caught fire and damaged.

It was the contractual liability of the workshop to care your vehicle till delivery of the vehicle in same condition. Kindly provide us the subrogation, so that we can proceed for the claim recovery from M/s Modern Motors Ltd.

Kindly comply with the aforesaid requirements within seven days of the receipt of this letter.

For any further clarification please feel free to contact us.”



8. So, opposite parties no.1 & 2 required of the complainant to provide them letter of subrogation so as to enable them to proceed for the claim recovery from M/s Modern Motors ltd.-OP No.3. Because, according to them opposite party no.3 had entered into a contractual liability with the complainant till delivery of the vehicle in same condition. Complainant failed to provide such subrogation letter resulting in repudiating the claim vide letter Ex.R.1.

9. Hon’ble National Commission in case Dijabar Sahoo Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2008) CPJ 307 (NC) in such scenario where claim of the insured was closed as No Claim has affirmed the order of the Consumer Fora directing the insured to provide required documents to the insurer who was ordered to settle claim within six weeks from the receipt of documents.

10. In case Kanhu Charan Nanda Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1 (1995) CPJ 327 Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, where the vehicle met with an accident and the insurer had engaged surveyor who assessed damage and required insured to produce certain documents which were not produced by him. Same was held not amounting to deficiency in service.

11. In the instant case also claim of the complainant was repudiated and filed as No Claim because he failed to provide letter of subrogation to opposite party no.1 & 2. By not producing such documents, opposite parties can not be termed guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice. In view of this matter, we feel that complainant has no redress able grievance against the opposite parties no.1 & 2.

M.G.Ramesh, S/o Sri G.Rajendran, Hindu,

Aged about 38 years, Business,

Residing at 10-491, Gokulam Street,

Chittoor District – 517001.
… Complainant

And



1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Having its Registered office at GE Plaza,

Airport Road, Yerrawada, Pune – 411006.



2. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager,

No. 27-126, GVR Enclave, Trunk Road,

Nellore, AP.



… Opposite Parties.





ORDER






This is a complaint filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- being the insurance amount for the total loss of the car. Rs.57,329/- towards interest paid by the complainant after the accident, Rs. 15,577/- of future loss to be suffered by him and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and costs of the complaint.



The complainant submits that he purchased a second hand car TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from one Mrs. N.P. Jhansi Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20-02-2007. The said car was insured for Rs.2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 22-09-2006 to 22-09-2007. The complainant submits that he purchased the car by obtaining car loan of Rs.3,45,600 (Rs.2,60,000/- of Principal Loan + Rs.85,600/- of Interest) from HDFC Bank to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of Rs.7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007, the said car was totally destroyed in a fire accident while it was kept parked in a car-parking shed at Chittoor.


The complainant intimated the said fact to 1st opposite party Branch Office at Chennai who deputed their surveyor and the said surveyor inspected the spot and assessed the loss. The F.I.R. copy, news paper report clippings, and Fire attendance certificate are filed herewith. The complainant submits that the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of this complainant in its letter dated 11-03-2007 stating that their contract is only with the previous owner of the car but not with the complainant. The complainant submits that he had no idea that he should transfer his Insurance policy onto his name. He was under impression, that after the due registration of transfer of ownership of the car with Regional Transport Authority, all the formalities of transfer were over.


As Insurance policy was subsisting till 22-09-2007, he was under impression that he was under its coverage. He issued legal notice dated 19.01.2009 to the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party did not reply. Therefore he filed this complaint claiming insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- for the loss of the car, Rs.57,329/- towards interest after the accident and Rs.15,577/- towards future loss of interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. The claim of the complainant may be allowed with interest at 24% p.a. and costs for the complaint.







The 1st opposite party filed written version alleging that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Sec. 2(d) of C.P.Act and the petition filed by the complainant does not come under the purview of Consumer dispute as envisaged in Sec.2(e) of the Act. This opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 since the interest of one Smt N.P.Jhanshi Lakshmi is covered under the policy No. OG – 07 – 1506 – 1801 – 00007600 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007.


The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the above said car by the complainant and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party does not admit that on 23.09.2007, the above said car was totally destroyed in fire accident while it was kept parked at car parking shed at Chittoor. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim made by the complainant is repudiated in its letter dated 11.03.2007.


The 1st opposite party submits that their lordships of Supreme Court held in the judgment reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court that the purchaser of the vehicle cannot agitate his claim for own damages of the vehicle purchased by him if the policy is not transferred in his name as the provisions of Sec.157 of M.V.Act are applicable for the claim made by the 3rd parties only, but not transferee of the Vehicle claiming own damages of the claims.



This opposite party submits that 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 transferee’s 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. This opposite party further submits that there is no cause of action for this complainant to file the complaint.

This opposite party further submits that the amount claimed by the complainant is highly excesive, exorbitant and without proportion to the loss sustained by him.

Under the circumstances this opposite party prays that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint made by the complainant with costs in the interest of justice.





The 2nd opposite party filed written version alleging that the allegation that the complainant purchased a second hand car and that the said policy duly insured with the 1st opposite party may be true. The further allegations that the complainant obtained the loan as “Used car loan” is true and correct and he has to pay regular monthly installments to this opposite party. This opposite party submits that the said car was destroyed due to fire accident while it was parked. This opposite party was unnecessarily added to the present proceedings and the present complaint against this opposite party may be dismissed with exemplary cost.



On the basis of the pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.2,85,000/- is not legal? If so, whether the 1st opposite party committed deficiency in service?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- interest amounts of Rs.57,329/- and Rs.15,577/-?



3) Whether the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-

together with interest at 24% P.A. for mental agony?



4) To what relief?





The complainant filed chief affidavit of Pw.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A13

and the opposite parties filed chief affidavit of Rw.1 and Rw.2.



Points No.1 to 3:-



The case of the complainant is that he purchased second hand TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from Mrs. N.P.Jhancy Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20.02.2007. The said car was insured for Rs. 2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007.



The complainant submits that he purchased a car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000 + Rs. 85,600 (Interest) from 2nd opposite party to be repudiated in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007 the said car was totally destroyed in the fire accident, when it was kept parked in a car parking shed at Chittoor. The complainant intimated the said fact to the 1st opposite party branch office at Chennai.


The complainant submitted the required documents viz., copy of F.I.R, News Paper Report clippings and fire attendance certificate to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance policy in his name and there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the complainant.



The complainant submits that after purchase of the vehicle and after transfer of his name in the R.C Book the transfer of Insurance Policy is automatic and he is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/-. The 1st opposite party committed deficiency of service and the complaint may be allowed.



The opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889, since the interest of one Mrs. N.P.Jansy Lakshmi is covered under the policy. The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the said car by the complainant and it does not admit that the said car was totally destroyed in fire accident. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim of the complainant is repudiated in its letter dt. 11.03.2007. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a second hand car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the complainant got transferred the ownership of the car in his name in the R.C Book, but failed to get transferred the Insurance policy Ex.A1 in his name.



It is also admitted fact that the original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi obtained Ex.A1 Insurance Policy for Rs. 2,85,000/- and the policy is subsisting. It is also admitted fact that the said car totally burnt in the fire accident and the 1st opposite party did not settle his claim and repudiated the same.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that he purchased the second hand car for Rs. 2,85,000/-, after he purchased the same the said car was destroyed in the fire accident within 37 days and the said fact was informed to the 1st opposite party the 1st opposite party deputed its surveyor and got assessed the damages of the vehicle.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant submitted relevant documents, such as copy of F.I.R, Fire Services Attendance services, original clippings of News Paper Reports and copy of complaint Ex.A3 to A5 and Ex.A9 to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party has not settled his claim of Rs. 2,85,000/- and repudiated the same in its letter Ex.A9 on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance Policy Ex.A1 in his name, after purchase of the second hand car and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the 1st opposite party cannot reject his claim. On account of rejection of his claim he was forced to pay interest of Rs. 57,329/- to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was put to hardship and harassment by the 1st opposite party and committed deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming total insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- and interest of Rs. 57,329/- and future interest of Rs. 15,577/- and compensation for mental agony of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the 1st opposite party and the complaint may be allowed.



The learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party marked the Chief Affidavit of RW-2 and submitted that the 2nd opposite party has only interest in the matter to recover the debt from the complainant. Inspite of granting sufficient time the 1st opposite party and its counsel are not present. After hearing both the complainant and 2nd opposite party, this Forum proceeded to decide this matter. This Forum also considered the Written Version of 1st opposite party and its Written Arguments and decisions submitted by it.



The 1st opposite party in its Written Version submitted that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 under Insurance Policy Ex.A1. The interest of original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi is covered under Insurance policy Ex.A1 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007. The claim made by the complainant is repudiated by its letter dt. 11.03.2007 Ex.A9. Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



The only point involved in this case is that whether the complainant can claim the Insurance amount inspite of the fact that he did not get transferred the insurance policy in his name within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle U/Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the provision U/Sec. 157 of M.V.Act is applicable in respect of third party risks only. It is not applicable to the complainant for his own damage. He also submits that G.R.10 of Motor Tariff Regulations relating to transfer of vehicles directed the Insurance companies to honour the full claim of the transferees.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the complainant purchased the vehicle, the transfer of Insurance policy is automatic and the Insurer cannot repudiate his claim to that effect. He further contends that the National Commission in its Judgment in R.P.No.556/2002 between Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd held that the Insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle can not be transferred in favour of the complainant. Therefore he contends that the repudiation of his claim by the opposite party No.1 is not proper and the complainant is entitled to the same.



The opposite party No.1 filed its written arguments contending that ignorance of law is of no excuse. It is also contended that the provisions of Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act clearly says that a duty is cast upon the transferee of a motor vehicle to get the insurance policy transferred in his name.



The complainant has not transferred the Insurance Policy in his name within 14 days under Sec.157 (2) of M.V.Act. There is no provity of contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party. It is also contended that their lordships in AIR 1996 – S.C – Page No. 586 between M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., held that :-



“….The requirements of Chapter XI are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (Form 51 Prescribed under 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks only…..



…….The transferee of the vehicle could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risk 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 is transferred”…….



…….The insurance company did not reply to the two letters sent by transferee. In the meanwhile the vehicle met with a serious accident. The transferee asked for the assessment of the damage as the vehicle was a total loss. There was no agreement between the Insurance and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk.



…….The farmer undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 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.



He also relied on the decision reported in NC Judgment in R.P.No. 426 /07 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri V.C.Deenadayal and another wherein their lordships held that

“…..Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the insurance company within 14 days of its purchase under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case. After purchase of vehicle, the insurance policy has been renewed twice.


In the circumstances it is represented that the complainants dishonestly combined in the name of complainant No.1 and dishonestly claimed ‘no claim bonus’. The real owner complainant had neither registration in her name nor insurance. She has no insurable interest nor privity of contract with petitioner. The original owner cannot maintain any claim against insurance.”




The facts of the above cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision reported in National Commission in R.P.No.556 /2002 wherein their lordships considered the decision rendered in A.I.R- 1996 SC Pg.586 and held as follows :-



“….On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement.



If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs.15/-. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate.”



It appears that in a number of cases Insurance Companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferees of the vehicle because the transferees were not having any insurable interest.”













Their lordships further held as follows:

“….As stated above, the second ground given by the State Commission cannot be justified in view of the India Motor Tariff Regulation. Further, on this aspect, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced on record the judgement rendered by the Chattisgarh State Commission in the case of “Ajimuddin Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd” reported in 2006 (2) CPR 124 wherein the Commission has observed in paragraph 7 as under:



Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that GIC has issued special instructions regarding statement of claim in case of transfer of policy. It was submitted that as per the said instructions the transfer of policy in favour of the purchaser the Comlainant/Appellant should be treated as automatic. It appears that the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle.


In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete insulations (P) Ltd. V.New India Assurnce Co.Ltd. was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR 10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy.”



In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the Complainant.”






The Hon’ble National Commission considered the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in A.I.R -1996 (S.C) – Page 586 and also the G.R.10 of the Motor Tariff Regulations and came to conclusion that the insurance company ought not have rejected the claim of the transferee. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission, cited supra, I am of the opinion that the 1st opposite party cannot reject the claim of the complainant and it amounts deficiency in service. This point is answered in favour of the complainant.

The next point to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled to the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- mentioned in the Insurance policy Ex.A1.



The complainant in his written arguments submitted that the original owner Smt. Jhansy Lakshmi obtained Insurance policy and the ID value mentioned therein was Rs.2,85,000/-. He also submits that he obtained used car loan of Rs.2,85,000/- and purchased the second hand Indica Car No. A.P.03 P 7889. The said vehicle was destroyed in a fire accident and he claims the entire ID value of Rs. 2,85,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A1 and the same may be allowed to him. The opposite party has not disputed the value of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party pleaded total ignorance regarding the fire accident to the vehicle. It was silent regarding the damage of the vehicle and the claim putforth by the complainant.


When the 1st opposite party has not opposed the claim of the complainant in their written version as well as in written arguments, this Forum allows the claim of the complainant. Further the complainant drew may attention to the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.A1 under the head” sum insured – Insured declared value and submits that ID value shall be treated as market value without any further depression for the purchase of total loss as mentioned in the certificate of insurance policy, it reads as follows :-

“IDV shall be treated as the ‘Market Value’ throughout the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss (TL)/ Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims.”



The complaint is allowed for Rs.2,85,000/- and the same is granted to him. The complainant is claiming Rs.57,329/- towards interest amount for the period from 07.04.2002 to 07.02.2009 as the 1st opposite party has not settled his claim and the same is disallowed. Since the complainant is granted the entire I.D value mentioned in Ex.A1, the complainant is not entitled to future interest amount of Rs.15,577/-. The complainant claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and the same is disallowed. Thus the claims of the complainant regarding interest amount of Rs.57,329/-, Rs.15,577/- and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- are disallowed.

M.G.Ramesh, S/o Sri G.Rajendran, Hindu,

Aged about 38 years, Business,

Residing at 10-491, Gokulam Street,

Chittoor District – 517001.
… Complainant

And



1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Having its Registered office at GE Plaza,

Airport Road, Yerrawada, Pune – 411006.



2. HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager,

No. 27-126, GVR Enclave, Trunk Road,

Nellore, AP.



… Opposite Parties.





ORDER






This is a complaint filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- being the insurance amount for the total loss of the car. Rs.57,329/- towards interest paid by the complainant after the accident, Rs. 15,577/- of future loss to be suffered by him and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and costs of the complaint.



The complainant submits that he purchased a second hand car TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from one Mrs. N.P. Jhansi Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20-02-2007. The said car was insured for Rs.2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 22-09-2006 to 22-09-2007. The complainant submits that he purchased the car by obtaining car loan of Rs.3,45,600 (Rs.2,60,000/- of Principal Loan + Rs.85,600/- of Interest) from HDFC Bank to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of Rs.7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007, the said car was totally destroyed in a fire accident while it was kept parked in a car-parking shed at Chittoor.


The complainant intimated the said fact to 1st opposite party Branch Office at Chennai who deputed their surveyor and the said surveyor inspected the spot and assessed the loss. The F.I.R. copy, news paper report clippings, and Fire attendance certificate are filed herewith. The complainant submits that the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of this complainant in its letter dated 11-03-2007 stating that their contract is only with the previous owner of the car but not with the complainant. The complainant submits that he had no idea that he should transfer his Insurance policy onto his name.


He was under impression, that after the due registration of transfer of ownership of the car with Regional Transport Authority, all the formalities of transfer were over. As Insurance policy was subsisting till 22-09-2007, he was under impression that he was under its coverage. He issued legal notice dated 19.01.2009 to the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party did not reply. Therefore he filed this complaint claiming insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- for the loss of the car, Rs.57,329/- towards interest after the accident and Rs.15,577/- towards future loss of interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages. The claim of the complainant may be allowed with interest at 24% p.a. and costs for the complaint.







The 1st opposite party filed written version alleging that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Sec. 2(d) of C.P.Act and the petition filed by the complainant does not come under the purview of Consumer dispute as envisaged in Sec.2(e) of the Act.


This opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 since the interest of one Smt N.P.Jhanshi Lakshmi is covered under the policy No. OG – 07 – 1506 – 1801 – 00007600 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007. The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the above said car by the complainant and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party does not admit that on 23.09.2007, the above said car was totally destroyed in fire accident while it was kept parked at car parking shed at Chittoor.


There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim made by the complainant is repudiated in its letter dated 11.03.2007. The 1st opposite party submits that their lordships of Supreme Court held in the judgment reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court that the purchaser of the vehicle cannot agitate his claim for own damages of the vehicle purchased by him if the policy is not transferred in his name as the provisions of Sec.157 of M.V.Act are applicable for the claim made by the 3rd parties only, but not transferee of the Vehicle claiming own damages of the claims.



This opposite party submits that 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 transferee’s 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. This opposite party further submits that there is no cause of action for this complainant to file the complaint.

This opposite party further submits that the amount claimed by the complainant is highly excesive, exorbitant and without proportion to the loss sustained by him.

Under the circumstances this opposite party prays that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint made by the complainant with costs in the interest of justice.





The 2nd opposite party filed written version alleging that the allegation that the complainant purchased a second hand car and that the said policy duly insured with the 1st opposite party may be true. The further allegations that the complainant obtained the loan as “Used car loan” is true and correct and he has to pay regular monthly installments to this opposite party. This opposite party submits that the said car was destroyed due to fire accident while it was parked. This opposite party was unnecessarily added to the present proceedings and the present complaint against this opposite party may be dismissed with exemplary cost.



On the basis of the pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

1) Whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.2,85,000/- is not legal? If so, whether the 1st opposite party committed deficiency in service?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs.2,85,000/- interest amounts of Rs.57,329/- and Rs.15,577/-?



3) Whether the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-

together with interest at 24% P.A. for mental agony?



4) To what relief?





The complainant filed chief affidavit of Pw.1 and marked Exs. A1 to A13

and the opposite parties filed chief affidavit of Rw.1 and Rw.2.



Points No.1 to 3:-



The case of the complainant is that he purchased second hand TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 from Mrs. N.P.Jhancy Lakshmi of Chittoor on 20.02.2007. The said car was insured for Rs. 2,85,000/- with the 1st opposite party for the period from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007.



The complainant submits that he purchased a car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000 + Rs. 85,600 (Interest) from 2nd opposite party to be repudiated in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 7,200/-. The complainant submits that on 29.03.2007 the said car was totally destroyed in the fire accident, when it was kept parked in a car parking shed at Chittoor.


The complainant intimated the said fact to the 1st opposite party branch office at Chennai. The complainant submitted the required documents viz., copy of F.I.R, News Paper Report clippings and fire attendance certificate to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance policy in his name and there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the complainant.



The complainant submits that after purchase of the vehicle and after transfer of his name in the R.C Book the transfer of Insurance Policy is automatic and he is entitled to claim the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/-. The 1st opposite party committed deficiency of service and the complaint may be allowed.



The opposite party submits that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889, since the interest of one Mrs. N.P.Jansy Lakshmi is covered under the policy. The opposite party has no knowledge about the purchase of the said car by the complainant and it does not admit that the said car was totally destroyed in fire accident. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party and so the claim of the complainant is repudiated in its letter dt. 11.03.2007. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a second hand car by obtaining user car loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the complainant got transferred the ownership of the car in his name in the R.C Book, but failed to get transferred the Insurance policy Ex.A1 in his name.



It is also admitted fact that the original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi obtained Ex.A1 Insurance Policy for Rs. 2,85,000/- and the policy is subsisting. It is also admitted fact that the said car totally burnt in the fire accident and the 1st opposite party did not settle his claim and repudiated the same.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that he purchased the second hand car for Rs. 2,85,000/-, after he purchased the same the said car was destroyed in the fire accident within 37 days and the said fact was informed to the 1st opposite party the 1st opposite party deputed its surveyor and got assessed the damages of the vehicle.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant submitted relevant documents, such as copy of F.I.R, Fire Services Attendance services, original clippings of News Paper Reports and copy of complaint Ex.A3 to A5 and Ex.A9 to the 1st opposite party, but the 1st opposite party has not settled his claim of Rs. 2,85,000/- and repudiated the same in its letter Ex.A9 on the ground that the complainant did not get transferred the Insurance Policy Ex.A1 in his name, after purchase of the second hand car and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the 1st opposite party cannot reject his claim. On account of rejection of his claim he was forced to pay interest of Rs. 57,329/- to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was put to hardship and harassment by the 1st opposite party and committed deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming total insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- and interest of Rs. 57,329/- and future interest of Rs. 15,577/- and compensation for mental agony of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the 1st opposite party and the complaint may be allowed.



The learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party marked the Chief Affidavit of RW-2 and submitted that the 2nd opposite party has only interest in the matter to recover the debt from the complainant. Inspite of granting sufficient time the 1st opposite party and its counsel are not present. After hearing both the complainant and 2nd opposite party, this Forum proceeded to decide this matter. This Forum also considered the Written Version of 1st opposite party and its Written Arguments and decisions submitted by it.



The 1st opposite party in its Written Version submitted that the interest of the complainant is not covered in respect of TATA Indica DLS bearing registration number AP 03 P 7889 under Insurance Policy Ex.A1. The interest of original owner Mrs. Jancy Lakshmi is covered under Insurance policy Ex.A1 and the same is valid from 23.09.2006 to 22.09.2007. The claim made by the complainant is repudiated by its letter dt. 11.03.2007 Ex.A9. Since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.



The only point involved in this case is that whether the complainant can claim the Insurance amount inspite of the fact that he did not get transferred the insurance policy in his name within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle U/Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act.



The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the provision U/Sec. 157 of M.V.Act is applicable in respect of third party risks only. It is not applicable to the complainant for his own damage. He also submits that G.R.10 of Motor Tariff Regulations relating to transfer of vehicles directed the Insurance companies to honour the full claim of the transferees.



The learned counsel for the complainant submits that after the complainant purchased the vehicle, the transfer of Insurance policy is automatic and the Insurer cannot repudiate his claim to that effect. He further contends that the National Commission in its Judgment in R.P.No.556/2002 between Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd held that the Insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle can not be transferred in favour of the complainant. Therefore he contends that the repudiation of his claim by the opposite party No.1 is not proper and the complainant is entitled to the same.



The opposite party No.1 filed its written arguments contending that ignorance of law is of no excuse. It is also contended that the provisions of Sec. 157(2) of M.V.Act clearly says that a duty is cast upon the transferee of a motor vehicle to get the insurance policy transferred in his name.



The complainant has not transferred the Insurance Policy in his name within 14 days under Sec.157 (2) of M.V.Act. There is no provity of contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party. It is also contended that their lordships in AIR 1996 – S.C – Page No. 586 between M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd., held that :-



“….The requirements of Chapter XI are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (Form 51 Prescribed under 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks only…..



…….The transferee of the vehicle could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risk 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 is transferred”…….



…….The insurance company did not reply to the two letters sent by transferee. In the meanwhile the vehicle met with a serious accident. The transferee asked for the assessment of the damage as the vehicle was a total loss. There was no agreement between the Insurance and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk.



…….The farmer undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 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.



He also relied on the decision reported in NC Judgment in R.P.No. 426 /07 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri V.C.Deenadayal and another wherein their lordships held that

“…..Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the insurance company within 14 days of its purchase under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case.


After purchase of vehicle, the insurance policy has been renewed twice. In the circumstances it is represented that the complainants dishonestly combined in the name of complainant No.1 and dishonestly claimed ‘no claim bonus’. The real owner complainant had neither registration in her name nor insurance. She has no insurable interest nor privity of contract with petitioner. The original owner cannot maintain any claim against insurance.”








The facts of the above cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision reported in National Commission in R.P.No.556 /2002 wherein their lordships considered the decision rendered in A.I.R- 1996 SC Pg.586 and held as follows :-



“….On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement.



If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs.15/-. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate.”



It appears that in a number of cases Insurance Companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferees of the vehicle because the transferees were not having any insurable interest.”


Their lordships further held as follows:

“….As stated above, the second ground given by the State Commission cannot be justified in view of the India Motor Tariff Regulation. Further, on this aspect, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced on record the judgement rendered by the Chattisgarh State Commission in the case of “Ajimuddin Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd” reported in 2006 (2) CPR 124 wherein the Commission has observed in paragraph 7 as under:



Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that GIC has issued special instructions regarding statement of claim in case of transfer of policy. It was submitted that as per the said instructions the transfer of policy in favour of the purchaser the Comlainant/Appellant should be treated as automatic. It appears that the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle. In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete insulations (P) Ltd. V.New India Assurnce Co.Ltd. was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR 10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy.”



In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the Complainant.”



The Hon’ble National Commission considered the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in A.I.R -1996 (S.C) – Page 586 and also the G.R.10 of the Motor Tariff Regulations and came to conclusion that the insurance company ought not have rejected the claim of the transferee. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission, cited supra, I am of the opinion that the 1st opposite party cannot reject the claim of the complainant and it amounts deficiency in service. This point is answered in favour of the complainant.

The next point to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled to the entire insurance amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- mentioned in the Insurance policy Ex.A1.



The complainant in his written arguments submitted that the original owner Smt. Jhansy Lakshmi obtained Insurance policy and the ID value mentioned therein was Rs.2,85,000/-. He also submits that he obtained used car loan of Rs.2,85,000/- and purchased the second hand Indica Car No. A.P.03 P 7889. The said vehicle was destroyed in a fire accident and he claims the entire ID value of Rs. 2,85,000/- as mentioned in Ex.A1 and the same may be allowed to him.


The opposite party has not disputed the value of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party pleaded total ignorance regarding the fire accident to the vehicle. It was silent regarding the damage of the vehicle and the claim putforth by the complainant. When the 1st opposite party has not opposed the claim of the complainant in their written version as well as in written arguments, this Forum allows the claim of the complainant.

Harnek Saggu son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident f H. No.271, St. No.11, Mair Colony, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Registered office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, armada, Pune-411006, Maharashtra through M.D.



2. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Feroze Gandhi market, Ludhiana through Manager.



3. United Motors, Opp. Medi City, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.



4. ICICI Bank Ltd. Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its branch manager.(Deleted vide order dated 4.3.2009)

(Opposite parties)

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant after purchase on 13.3.2006 Tata Indigo car, got it registered vide registration no. PB-10-BV-0570 and obtained comprehensive insurance policy vide cover note no. PC0610795079 and policy no. OG-08-1001-1801-000038, valid from 6.5.2007 to 5.5.2008. The car on 6.7.2007, in Rajasthan, when the complainant was coming from Jaipur to Delhi, met with an accident when the car was struck by Rajasthan Roadways Bus, causing extensive damage to the vehicle. DDR No.20 dated 6.7.2007 was entered in P.S. Shahpura, Jaipur. Opposite party immediately was intimated qua accident vide rapat no.1765032. On reaching Ludhiana, Sh. Sunil, agent of opposite party was telephonically contacted and on his instructions took the vehicle to opposite party no.3-United Motors, for repair. Opposite party no.3 agreed to return the vehicle within 10 days after repair. But they failed to return the vehicle despite repeated visits and calls given to them, forcing issuance of letter dated 17.9.2007 and e-mails dated 18.9.2007 and 28.9.2007 to opposite party no.1. Third e-mail on 22.10.2007 was issued to opposite party no.1 but without any effect.

Such act of opposite party was resorting to unfair trade practice causing monetary loss to the complainant. Warranty period of the car also lapsed on 12.9.2007 depriving the complainant from availing warranty benefits from the manufacturer of the car-Tata Motors. For such deficiency has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- due to non delivery of the vehicle and another 5,00,000/- for physical loss and Rs.4,23,000/- cost of the car along with compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in joint reply pleaded that complaint is not maintainable, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. It is conceded that complainant got his vehicle insured with them and that he had lodged claim qua damage to the vehicle. As per terms and conditions of the policy, amount of claim was cashless reimbursement and the amount was repayable to the repairer and not to the insured qua amount assessed by the surveyor to be appointed by the opposite party. On receipt of the claim, it was registered, entertained and processed.

The claim was settled for Rs. 46,373/- as assessed by Sh. Chander Mohan Surveyor & Loss Assessor vide report dated 17.8.2007. The amount was directly paid to opposite party no.3. Complainant even issued the claim disbursement satisfaction voucher to that effect by accepting the amount of Rs.46,373/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Surveyor had assessed the loss properly under terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant is not entitled to any further amount. They have fully discharged their responsibility under the insurance policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Opposite party no.3-United Motors vide separate reply also took objection qua jurisdiction of the Fora and that complainant by own act and conduct is estopped to file the complaint. Complainant concealed the material facts from the Fora as he had filed a complaint before Insurance Ombudsman, who dismissed the same vide order dated 23.4.2008. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 on behalf of the complainant paid Rs. 46,373/- to them, so, the complaint is not maintainable. Rs.46,373/- were received against invoice dated 17.8.2007 worth Rs.61,087.50p, total amount recoverable from the complainant.

Complainant is liable to pay the parking charges of the vehicle. They have denied accidental theory as proponded by the complainant. Further denied that they had informed the complainant that the vehicle after repair would be ready for delivery within 10 days. Car after repair was ready on 16.8.2007 and the complainant was informed to take delivery of the vehicle. Several times he was intimated telephonically to take back his vehicle after repair after making balance payment of Rs. 14,714.50p. Qua it, letters dated 30.9.2007 and 20.10.2007 were also sent to the complainant. For reasons best known to him, he failed to take delivery of the vehicle. So, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or relief.

4. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Not in dispute that the complainant being owner of the vehicle got it insured vide cover note Ex.C.2 with the opposite parties no.1 & 2 and obtained insurance of the vehicle from 6.5.2007 to 5.5.2008. When the vehicle met with an accident, had lodged report (Ex.C.30 dated 6.10-.2007 in P.S. Shahpura, Rajasthan. Damaged vehicle for repair was sent by the complainant to opposite party no.3 who after repair issued retail invoice Ex.R.5 , raising bill of Rs. 61,087.50p for repair of the vehicle. Out of this repair amount, opposite party no.3 directly got a sum of Rs. 46,373/- from opposite party. Then complainant also executed receipt Ex.R.3 in favour of opposite party no.1 after receipt of Rs.46,373/- as full and final settlement with respect to his claim.

7. Where the insured had received under the insurance claim any amount and executed the receipt in favour of the Insurance Company as full and final settlement of his claim, he would be debarred from seeking further relief or amount from the Insurance Company. In support of such legal proposition, we relied on cases Savitri Salt Suppliers V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in II (2009) CPJ 223 (Hon’ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala); Jiyajeerao Cotton mills Ltd. Vs. new India Assurance Co. ltd. 1 (1992) CPJ 292 (Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) ; National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 1 (2009) CPJ 292 ( Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi); II (2008) CPJ 319 (NC) titled as Vishnu Tex Vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Anr. (Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and IV (2005) CPJ 414, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shasheenkhan Mubassir Alam Khan (Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.

8. In the instant case, no element of fraud is alleged by the complainant in obtaining full and final settlement receipt Ex.R.3 by the complainant when amount of Rs.46,373/- was paid by opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.3 when damaged vehicle was got repaired by the complainant. Therefore, after having received amount without protest as full and final settlement of his claim, complainant in our view would be estopped from claiming any further amount from the opposite party.

9. It is also established that complainant feeling aggrieved with receipt of amount of Rs.46,373/- approached Insurance ombudsman, who vide order Ex.R.5 dated 23.4.2008 found no merit in his allegations and advised the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle by paying depreciation and car parking charges to opposite party no.3. This aspect was suppressed by the complainant from his complaint. Moreover, amount of damage to car of the complainant was paid as assessed by the surveyor Sh. Chander Mohan vide his report Ex.R.13 and R14. Amount of Rs.46,373.50p was found payable under the policy to the complainant, which was paid to opposite party no.3, qua which the complainant gave full and final receipt to opposite party no.1.

10. Though opposite party no.3 had prepared retail invoice Ex.R.5 by raising Rs.61,087.50p for repair of accidental vehicle of the complainant. Out of which, surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss at Rs. 46,373.50p payable.

11. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant has unnecessarily dragged them in litigation by filing the present complaint. In fact, it appears that dispute is between the complainant and opposite party no.3 who has kept the vehicle with them, due to failure of the complainant to pay balance cost of repair amount of Rs.14,714.50p and failure to pay the parking charges of the vehicle to them.

Though, opposite party no.3 had called upon the complainant vide letter Ex.R.6 dated 20.10.2007 sent through courier receipt Ex.R.7 and letter R.9 dated 30.9.2007 sent through courier receipt Ex.R10 to lift his vehicle after paying balance repair amount etc. to them. The Insurance Ombudsman vide his order dated 23.4.2008 had also advised the complainant to clear the bill of opposite party no.3 to lift the vehicle.

12. In these circumstances, it appears that the complainant is not able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of either of the opposite parties. Rather, he himself is guilty of not paying balance payment to opposite party no.3-United Motors for lifting the vehicle by paying their due charges. Consequently, we find no merit in the complaint and as such the same being without any merit is dismissed.

Ashok Kumar s/o late Sh. Hem Raj c/o M/s Hem Raj, Ashok Kumar, Main Bazar, Bhawani Garh, Tehsil & Distt. Sangrur.



…..Complainant.

Versus



Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 147, Feroze Gandhi

Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party.


O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Sh. Hem Raj father of the complainant was registered owner of car bearing no.PB-13L-4809, who died on 10.12.2005. After expiry of earlier insurance policy of the car, it was got insured by the complainant from the opposite party. While getting insurance policy for the car, complainant had disclosed to opposite party that his father had died on 10.12.2005 and requested them to issue insurance policy in his name.

But opposite party issued cover note in the name of his deceased father. Consequently, made a written request vide letter dated 8.11.2006 to opposite party, requesting to issue cover note of the car in his own name and make necessary correction in the cover note. Unfortunately, insured car on 18.4.2007 met with an accident and damage claim was lodged with the opposite party, under the policy which was valid from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. Opposite party subsequehtly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 22.6.2007, on the ground that policy was in the name of Sh. Hem Raj, who had died on 10.12.2005 and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the same had lapsed. Within three months of death of insured, the policy was not got transferred by legal heirs in their name, so, claim not maintainable. This repudiation stands assailed to be null, void and illegal in the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and claimed damages of Rs.1,67,600/- suffered by the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs Rs.10,000/-.

2- Opposite party contested the complaint, on ground that one Sanjeev Kumar approached them with claim for loss caused to the vehicle, due to an accident occurred on 18.4.2007. After receiving the claim application on 21.5.2008, they promptly under guidelines of IRDA and after going through the record and report of investigator, found that Sh. Hem Raj was owner of the vehicle. He had died on 10.12.2005. Legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Hem Raj had not approached the insurance company, within three months from the date of death of policy holder, to get it transferred in their name. So, claim was rejected and intimated to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, vide letter dated 22.6.2007. They have also taken objection that complaint is baseless, complainant is not a consumer.

3- To prove their respective pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and stood heard through their counsels.

4- The facts which are emerging and relevant for consideration are that Sh. Hem Ran father of the complainant was owner of the vehicle no.PB-13L-4809. Sh. Hem Raj died on 10.12.2005. Qua the damage to the car, in an accident on 18.4.2007, claim was lodged with opposite party under policy valid from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. But the claim was repudiated, on the ground that the policy was not got transferred by legal heirs of Sh. Hem Raj, in their favour. So, claim not maintainable.

5- Outrightly, we may venture to record that repudiation of the claim by opposite party is not at all justified and maintainable. Because insurance of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant w.e.f. 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007. This happened after death of original owner Sh. Hem Raj, who had died on 10.12.2005. It means after death of Sh. Hem Raj, policy (Ex.C3) w.e.f. 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007 was issued in the name of deceased Sh. Hem Raj. Ex.C3 also contains reference that previous policy of the vehicle expired on 3.11.2006. It means it was renewal of the previous policy of the car which again was issued in the name of Sh. Hem Raj, though he was dead on that day. Complainant vide communication Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006 had requested and conveyed opposite party, having received cover note no.10002859735 qua the vehicle issued in the name of Sh. Hem Raj. He brought to notice of opposite party that had already told their development officer, while getting insurance of the vehicle done that his father Sh. Hem Raj had already expired on 10.12.2005. Request was made to issue cover note and insurance policy in his name, as he has paid the premium.

Further, it was brought to notice that under the Will of his father, had become owner of the car, but mistake was done by opposite party while issuing policy in the name of his father. He then prayed for correction of mistake in the cover note and issuance of insurance policy in his own name. This communication Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006 was received by the opposite party, as it contains official stamp of the opposite party. So, means the letter was delivered by hand by the complainant to opposite party.

6- Letter Ex.C18 leaves us in no doubt that after death of his father, when complainant got renewal of insurance policy from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007, had pointed to development officer of the opposite party that his father Sh. Hem Raj was dead and cover note and policy be issued in his name. But when it was issued in the name of his father, he requested vide letter Ex.C18 dated 8.11.2006, for correction of the mistake in the cover note and issuance of policy in his favour. Emphatically apparent that policy which was valid through lifetime of Sh. Hem Raj recorded owner of the vehicle, had lapsed. So, there was no question for applying for transfer of that policy within three months of death of policy holder, in the name of LRs. Such condition of the insurance policy has wrongly been relied by opposite party, to repudiate the claim.

As such condition won’t be applicable to the case in hand. As that earlier policy in the name of original owner, had lapsed. Thereafter, complainant took fresh policy, insuring the vehicle and requested to insure the vehicle in his own name. But development officer of opposite party instead issued cover note in the name of Sh. Hem Raj deceased father of the complainant, who was already dead on that day.

7- Sequel to the discussions, it is apparent that claim had wrongly and illegally been repudiated by opposite party. So, they certainly would be guilty of mis-conduct of not rendering proper services to its own consumer.

8- Therefore, we allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party to settle damage claim to the vehicle of the complainant, taking as if it was insured in the name of complainant and then settle damage claim of the complainant, in terms and conditions of the policy, within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. For thrusting this unavoidable litigation on the complainant, opposite party ordered to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.