Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that she purchased a car Ignis Delta Petrol having RC No.PB91E-1662, Engine-Chassis No.4476068-225046 from her mother-in-law Smt.Parkash Kaur on 27.12.2019 as said Parkash Kaur executed affidavit of sale and also appended her signatures on forms No.29-30 etc. and accordingly, the policy on the said vehicle was also purchased from Opposite Party. Further alleges that on 18.01.2020 Smt.Parkash Kaur has died and during the life time of Smt.Parkash Kaur, the complainant had deposited the fee with the registering authority for the transfer of the vehicle. Unfortunately, on 09.09.2019 husband of the complainant also died. Thereafter, the vehicle in question met with an accident as a stay cow came suddenly in front of the vehicle which caused total loss. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party under the policy, but the Opposite Party rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the insurance policy was not transferred till the date of the loss, but this ground is not sufficient to repudiate the claim of the complainant because the complainant is even the legal heir of deceased Smt.Parkash Kaur as the son of Smt.Parkash Kaur who was also the husband of the complainant has predeceased Smt.Parkash Kaur. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the office of the Opposite Party to reimburse the loss caused to the vehicle under the policy, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Party may be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,21,905/- to the complainant under the policy and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment besides Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission deem fit may please be granted to the Complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the redressal of her grievances.
2. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Further alleges that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which requires voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Further alleges that the complainant has concealed the fact there was non insurable interest of insured as vehicle was alleged to be sold by the insured to the complainant but RC and Insurance Policy were not transferred till the date of loss. The condition No.8 of the Indian Motor Tariff read as in the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passed may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. Non insurable interest-insured, legal heir(s) either communicated insurer in the event of the death or requested for change of ownership in time. The RC and insurance policy were not transferred in the name of purchaser till the date of loss even as per section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act which makes it mandatory to get the registration and insurance policy transferred in the name of purchaser within 14 days of alleged sale, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 01.08.2020. On merits, the Opposite Party took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. As such present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, Opposite Party also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Nishant Gera Ex.Ops1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.OP5, affidavit tof Japneet Singh Surveyor Ex.Ops6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that undisputedly, the vehicle in question was in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur, who has since expired on 18.01.2020. As per the case of the complainant that during the life time of deceased Smt.Parkash Kaur in whose name the insured vehicle was registered, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question alongwith insurance policy and accordingly, she filed requisite forms 29 and 30 with the registering authority for the transfer of the same, but still the vehicle in question is in the name of its original owner. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which requires voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Further alleges that the complainant has concealed the fact there was non insurable interest of insured as vehicle was alleged to be sold by the insured to the complainant but RC and Insurance Policy were not transferred till the date of loss. The condition No.8 of the Indian Motor Tariff read as in the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passed may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. Non insurable interest-insured, legal heir(s) either communicated insurer in the event of the death or requested for change of ownership in time. The RC and insurance policy were not transferred in the name of purchaser till the date of loss even as per section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act which makes it mandatory to get the registration and insurance policy transferred in the name of purchaser within 14 days of alleged sale, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 01.08.2020. Bare perusal of alleged forms No.29 and 30 placed by the complainant on record shows that though these documents were allegedly signed by one Parkash Kaur, but there is no stamp of the Registering Authority vide which they accepted the same from the complainant for the transfer of the vehicle in question. Moreover, in the affidavit of seller Ex.C3, the engine number bearing 476068 is different whereas actually as per the documents the number of Engine is 4476068 and there is lot of difference in the engine number, which creates suspicion for the adjudication of the matter in summary procedure before this District Consumer Commission. So for the proper adjudication and to prove the authenticity of these documents placed on record by the complainant for the transfer of the vehicle in question, we feel that there is requirement of elaborated evidence both oral and documentary and as such it is only civil court of competent jurisdiction which can try and decide the present complaint. The complaint cannot be decided by this District Consumer Commission in a summary manner.
7. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Not only this, the nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements. Further in case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction.”
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of her grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:16.08.2022.
