Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/720/2019

Ajay Ahlawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Rathee

23 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/720/2019
Date of Institution	:	18/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2020

 

Ajay Ahlawat s/o Sh. Yashbir Ahlawat, resident of 740/20, near D.M. City School, Prem Nagar, Rohtak (Haryana).  Presently resident of 1175, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, r/o 2^nd Floor, SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mohit Rathee, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The averments are, complainant had purchased a car bearing registration No.CH-01BL-1919 from Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd. and had applied for transfer of the RC in his name before the Transport Department. His case is, in the process of transfer of ownership by way of registration certificate, the vehicle was badly damaged on the intervening night of 21/22.3.2019 at about 00:15 a.m. as a wild animal came in front of the car due to which the car became imbalanced and turned turtle. At that time, it was being driven by one Sh. Lokesh who was having a valid driving licence. His case is, on the date of accident i.e. 23.3.2019, the insurance policy was effective from 8.7.2018 to 7.7.2019.  Claim was submitted, but, it was repudiated vide letter dated 8.4.2019 on the ground there was no contract of insurance inter se parties as the RC as well as the insurance was still in the name of the previous owner i.e. Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd. while the complainant claimed  preparation of the RC was under process. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs.13,52,400/- alongwith interest; compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and claimed there was no contract of insurance inter se parties, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. Reference was made to the relevant provisions on point that neither the RC was got transferred nor the complainant had applied to the OP for change of contract of insurance in his name in place of the previous owner. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     The complainant chose not to file any rejoinder despite grant of sufficient opportunity for the same.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record as well as written arguments of OP, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, the admitted facts are, RC of the vehicle on the date of the damage i.e. intervening night of 21/22.3.2019 was still in the name of Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd. It is not the case of the complainant, he had applied to the OP for the change of the contract of insurance and substitution inter se parties in place of the previous owner i.e. Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd.  No such application or letter was produced to show complainant had applied for the change of contract of insurance. In such a situation, the previous owner i.e. Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd. was a necessary party, but, it was not joined as such.  Hence, this consumer complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary party. 
7.     Perusal of the record further shows, no application in writing was made by the complainant to the OP for the change of the contract of insurance and transfer of the insurance policy in his name in place of the previous owner i.e. Devi Computronics Pvt. Ltd. The complainant  has claimed an amount of Rs.13,52,400/- as damage caused to the vehicle, however, no report from the mechanic or any mechanical expert was produced to show the vehicle in question had suffered total damage of Rs.13,52,400/-. Even the photographs of the damaged vehicle had not been produced on record to show that in fact any damage was caused to the vehicle. The complainant had made a reference, the vehicle in question became imbalanced and turned turtle. He has not lodged any report with the police to show any such type of damage was caused to the vehicle. The instant consumer complaint has not been drafted in that manner.  Not only this, even the affidavit of the driver who was allegedly driving the vehicle in question namely Sh. Lokesh has not been annexed with the consumer complaint though his driving licence is on record. However, his affidavit, if adduced, could have highlighted the manner in which the damage to the vehicle was sustained.
8.     We have already discussed, contract of insurance was not transferred with the complainant in place of the previous owner. The learned counsel for the OP has relied on case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh, R.P. No.3110 of 2014 and the relevant paragraph No.4 thereof reads as under :-

“4.  As far as the complainant no.2 is concerned, admittedly despite having purchased the vehicle on 29.09.2000, he did not get the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name. In view of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 157 of The Motor Vehicles Act, the complainant no.2 was required to apply to the Insurance Company within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle for transferring of the insurance of the vehicle in his name. That having not been done, there was no privity of contract between him and the Insurance Company on the date the vehicle was stolen. Therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any claim for the stolen vehicle to the complainant no.2.”

 

9.     Further relied on case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar, 2016(4) CPJ 382 (NC) and the relevant paragraph No.14 thereof is reproduced as under :-

         “14. As per Rule GR 17, the transferee of the vehicle is required to apply for transfer of insurance policy in writing and that too along with consent of the previous owner of the vehicle. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to prove that he applied for transfer of insurance in writing nor he has produced any evidence to show that the previous owner gave his consent for transfer of insurance policy in his name.  Thus, it is clear that on the date of theft the respondent had no insurable interest in the subject vehicle.”

10.     Further relied on case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakhwant Singh, 2016 (2) CPJ 678 (NC) and the relevant paragraph No.6 thereof is reproduced as under :-

          “6.  In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that complainant who did not get insurance policy transferred in his name after purchase of vehicle was not entitled to claim compensation on account of loss to the vehicle due to accident and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal partly.”

11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/10/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President