Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)



Consumer complaint No. 177/06

Date of presentation: 26.6.2006

Date of decision: 25.3.2009



Arun Kumar on of Shri Kishan Chand resident of VPO Ballah, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP)



Complainant Versus



New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala



Opposite Party



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986



PRESIDENT: A.S.JASWAL

MEMBERS: PARDEEP DOGRA AND PABNA SHARMA



For the complainant: Sh Rajinder Thakur, Advocate.

For opposite party: Sh. Neeraj Bhatnagar, Advocate



ORDER

A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)



In nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Maruti Car bearing No.HP39-A-1601 from Shri Rajan Gupta son of Shri Panna Lal Gupta, resident of VPO Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. It is further asserted that after the transfer of registration certificate in his name, vide letter dated 13.6.2005, he had also informed the opposite party and requested it for the transfer of the name of the insured. It is asserted that the opposite party did not take any action for transfer of Policy in his name and that the said vehicle, on dated 12.7.05, had met with an accident near Choudhary Service Station, Ichhi (Gaggal) and suffered substantial damage. Due information to this effect was also given to the Police and that after completing the necessary formalities, he had submitted his claim for Rs.70,000/- to the opposite party, but it illegally repudiated the same and committed deficiency in service.

2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite party by filing amended reply stating therein that on receipt of the intimation regarding the alleged loss of the vehicle, the opposite party hired the services of Sh. Ashok kumar Sharma, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, who has assessed the final loss to the tune of Rs.26837/-. The defence of the opposite party is that since the complainant had not applied for transfer of insurance in his name on the prescribed form within 14 days of the transfer of vehicle, the claim of the complainant has rightly been closed by the answering opposite party as “NO Claim”. It is asserted that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

3. This Forum on 4.12.2006 framed the following points for determination:-

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service, as alleged? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled for and from whom? OPC

2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable, as alleged? OPOP

3. Relief

4. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-

Point no.1: No

Point No.2: Decided accordingly

Relief: The complaint is dismissed as per operative part of the order.



REASONS FOR FINDINGS

POINTS NO.1 & 2



5. Both these points are inter connected and inter linked, hence are taken up together for determination, in order to avoid repetition in discussion and for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party has failed to settle his claim and thus, committed deficiency in service.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the claim of the complainant was duly processed, verified and assessed by the opposite party by appointing an independent Surveyor, who vide his detailed report, has assessed damage to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.26837/-, but since the complainant has no insurable interest, the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service.

7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record available on the file was gone into in detail. The complainant has filed his affidavit, Ex.CW1, in which he has re-counted the averments, as made in the complaint. From the material on record, it stands prove that the vehicle of the complainant, which was purchased by him from Shri Rajan Gupta, had met with an accident during the subsistence of the Insurance policy and that the opposite party after receiving the intimation regarding the incident, had appointed its independent Surveyor, who had assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs.26836/- subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. There is no dispute regarding these facts.

8. The contention of the complainant that the opposite party has failed to transfer the insurance Policy in his name despite the fact that he has intimated it, well within time, is rejected being devoid of any force. He has not placed on record, any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he had applied to the opposite party for the transfer of the insurance Policy in his name. No doubt, the complainant has placed on record, copy of alleged information given to the opposite party for transfer of insurance Policy in his name, the receipt of which has been denied by the opposite party, but he has not placed on record, any postal receipt or other cogent evidence to prove this document. There is no evidence on record to prove that what efforts, the complainant had taken, after the issuance of this letter to the opposite party. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the complainant, no reliance can be put to annexure C5.

9. On the contrary, the opposite party has placed on record, affidavit of Sh. Bir Singh, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company, Ex.OPW1. In his affidavit, he has specifically deposed that no such information regarding transfer of insurance in the name of complainant was ever received by the opposite party. He has further deposed the complainant has failed to transfer the insurance in his name within 14 days, after the transfer of registration certificate in his name. Thus, his claim had been rightly filed as no claim regarding which the complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 30.9.2005. The evidence adduced by the opposite party to this effect, remains un-rebutted on record.

10. We would like to observe that as per clause (2) of section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes. Clause (2) of Section 157 of Act, reads as under:-

Transfer of certificate of insurance.

(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.

11. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove on record that he had ever applied to the insurance company in the prescribed form, for the transfer of insurance Policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in his name. Thus, the contention of the complainant that the opposite party has failed to transfer the insurance in his name, is rejected being devoid of any force.

12. since, the complainant has failed to prove that he had applied to the opposite parties on the prescribed form, for the transfer of the insurance in his name, within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, he cannot ask the opposite party for being indemnified. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence, point no.1 is answered in negative and point no.2 is decided accordingly.

13. No other point argued or urged before us.

Relief

14. In view of our findings on points no.1 and 2 above, the complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.