Delhi

New Delhi

CC/935/2014

Azahruddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.935/2014      

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Azahruddin

Son of Shri Allaha Nur

B-229, Gali No. 3, Mandawali

Delhi-110092                                                                              ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Manager,

60, Okhla Industrial Estate

New Delhi-20                                                                             ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Sh.  Bariq Ahmad, Member

Ms.  Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                                                              Date of Institution:-    16.12.2014                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Order   : -       04.11.2022

 

ORDER

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

 

1. The present case has been filed under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of Mahindra Xylo Tourist Taxi bearing Registration No. DL-1-YC-3270 9in short vehicle) which was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the insurer/ Opposite Party (in short OP) being policy No. 1316732338000476, effective for the period from 26.03.2014 to 25.03.2015.

 

2. It is stated that the said vehicle met with an accident, the complainant lodged a claim of loss towards repair of vehicle with insurer on 09.02.2014.

 

 

3. It is stated that on receipt of information regarding the accident, and the claim, the insurer appointed an independent Surveyor and loss Assessor to conduct a spot survey and submitted his report to OP, the complainant narrated the whole true story to the surveyor and loss assessor, besides this the complainant also handed over the copy of agreement alongwith bills and other papers.

 

4. It is stated by the complainant that on 26^th June 2012 the complainant decided to sell the vehicle in question, the cousin brother of the complainant showed his interest to purchase the same hence the complainant and the cousin brother of the complainant Mr. Sabir Ali entered an agreement in which the cost of the vehicle was settled as Rs.6,06,348/- (Rupees Six Lakh Six Thousand Three Hundred Forty  Eight ). Mr. Sabir Ali   cousin   brother/second party paid Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Thousand) in cash to the First Party/complainant and for remaining amount agreed to pay Rs.18,686/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six) per month for 18 months. Thereafter Mr. Sabir Ali failed to pay the installments to the complainant hence the above vehicle could not be transferred in the name of Sabir Ali meaning thereby the owner of the vehicle in question is still Mr. Azahruddin i.e. complainant.

 

5. That after inspection the vehicle in question the opposite party remain silent upto 10.06.2014 i.e. upto 4 months. However, instead of reimbursing the loss, the insurer on 11.06.2014 repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the allegation that he had already sold the vehicle to Sabir Ali.

 

6. That after the repudiation of the claim the complainant borrowed the amount from their friend circle and got repaired the vehicle in question from M/S Rishabh Motors authorized service center. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,11,514/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen) in repairing the vehicle in question.

 

7. It is stated that the above vehicle in question has been insured by the Opposite Party comprehensively and for which the complainant paid amount to the Opposite Party as demanded by them. After accident, refusal the amount as spent by the complainant is clearly unjust, illegal and unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party trying to run away from their liabilities, due to non-payment of the total amount, the complainant is in great tension, mental agony and pain.

 

8.  It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.1,11,514/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant, and compensation Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as for harassment, mental agony and pain with Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty Two Thousand) as cost of litigation.

 

 

9. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. OP filed written statement contesting the complaint. Written statement filed alleging inter alia stating that complainant has no cause of action as he does not file within the definition of Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It was also stated that complaint has not disclosed the cause of the alleged accident and the date of the accident. It was also stated that complainant had also not got lodged the FIR.

 

10. It is stated that the claim was not maintainable in view of the clause 1 of the policy which is as under:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the Insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the Insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

 

11. It was also stated that the complainant had no insurable interest at the time of alleged loss as ownership of the vehicle was transferred to one Sabir Ali. It was prayed that complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that claim was repudiated by letter dated 11.06.2014.

 

12. Both the parties filed their evidence by affidavit.

 

13. We have heard the Ld. counsel for Parties and perused the record.

 

14.  It is, however, not in dispute that the complainant continued to be the registered owner of the said vehicle, on the date of the accident. Complainant has filed the particulars of permit holder and renewal receipt issued from Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 28.02.2015 of the vehicle in question which was registered in the name of complainant at the time of alleged accident. Admittedly, however, the complainant had entered into a sale agreement with the said Sabir Ali.

 

15. The complainant himself submitted a motor claim 09.02.2014, with the claim form, along with the requisite documents, to the Insurer by Registered Post.  Aggrieved by the action of the Insurer company in not releasing the claim of the complainant5, towards reimbursement of losses on account of the accident, the complainant approached the District Forum/Commission.

 

16. It is patently clear that the complaint had been resisted by the Insurer on the purported ground that the complainant had sold the said vehicle to one Sabir Ali Ansari for a consideration of Rs.6,06,348/- On the other hand, the complainant contended that even though he had entered into a sale agreement with one Sabir Ali, he had not actually transferred ownership of the vehicle to him. The complainant contended that he had not been paid the full consideration for the said car, even as late as on 09.02.2014, when the accident occurred. That is why the complainant had himself paid insurance premium and taken out the Policy. The complainant strenuously contended that the Insurer had not produced a scrap of document before the District Forum to show that the premium for the said Insurance Policy  had been paid by Sabir Ali. No proceedings had also been initiated for change of registration of the vehicle, which was in the name of the complainant, to Sabir Ali.

 

17. We are accepted the contention of the complainant that the ownership of the said vehicle did not stand transferred to Sabir Ali. The Insurer had not produced any materials to show said that the insurance premium had not been paid by the complainant, but had been paid by Sabir Ali, the said car was registered in the name of the complainant.

 

18. It had also been argued on behalf of the complainant, that the Surveyor appointed by the Insurer had taken a consent letter from the complainant after the Survey, but had not taken any statement from Sabir Ali which could show that Sabir Ali was the owner of the said Car.

 

19. We have perused the record Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question, the name of the complainant Azharuddin is recorded as registered owner and the Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Complainant for the period from 26.03.2014 to 25.03.2015.  Looking to the above documents, it appears that the vehicle in question was still recorded in the name of Complainant, himself obtained insurance policy from the OP/Insurance Company.

 

20. It would also be pertinent to note the difference between the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the definition of owner in Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which has been repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the old Act owner meant the person in possession of a motor vehicle. The definition has undergone a change. Legislature has consciously changed the definition of owner to mean the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands.

 

21. The OP also failed to appreciate that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate are to be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred, with effect from the date of its transfer.

 

22. In Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar and Others 4, a three-Judge Bench of hon1ble supreme Court held that in view of the definition of the expression owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered, who, for the purposes of the said Act, would be treated as the owner of the vehicle. Where the registered owner purports to transfer the vehicle, but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of his liability as owner.

 

23. In Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs The New India Assurance Company ... CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2632 OF 2020 on 18 June, 2020, Hon`ble Supreme Court held "If the insured continues to remain the owner in law in view of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurer cannot evade its liability in case of an accident.”
     
24. In view of the definition of owner in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the complainant remained the owner of the said vehicle on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Sabir Ali. The ownership of the said vehicle did not stand transferred to Sabir Ali and the sale agreement is meaningless.

 

25. In our opinion, Sections 19 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which deal with the stage at which the property in movable goods passes to the buyer, is of no assistance to the Insurer. There can be no doubt that property in a specific movable property is transferred to the buyer at such time as parties to the contract intend it to be transferred, provided such immovable property is free to be transferred, and/or in other words capable of being transferred.

 

26. It is not the case that the claim application filed by the complainant was time barred. Moreover, the Insurer had, in any case, duly sent its Surveyors/ Assessors to assess the loss. The claim of the complainant could not have, in this case, been resisted, either on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, or on the ground of delay in lodging an Accident Information Report, or on the ground of delay in making a claim.

 

27. In any case, as held by this Court in Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another (2017) 1 SCC 724 delay in intimation of accident, or submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances, should not bar settlement of genuine claims.
28. We therefore hold OP guilty of deficiency in service, OP is directed to pay the claim of Rs.1,11,514/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand five Hundred Fourteen Only) along with 6% interest from day of filing claim till realization within 30 days and intimate the commission as well as complainant. We also award Rs.25,000/- (rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to complainant for non-processing of claim despite claim already lodged by the complainant to OP in time and declined under the false plea of ownership. The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act.

Order accordingly. Office is directed to send one true copy of this order to the parties/speed post in accordance with the rules. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in). Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this  4^th day of November, 2022.

 

 

 

(POONAM CHADHARY)

President

 

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                             (ADARSH NAIN)        

          MEMBER                                                                               MEMBER