DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/80/2021

Date of Institution : 23.03.2021

Date of Decision : 30.03.2022

Simranjeet Singh aged about 23 years son of Narinder Singh resident of House No. B-V/1212, Sanghera Road, Barnala-148101. 

…Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director. 

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate Office: Reliance Centre, 4th Floor, South Wing, Near Prabhat Colony, Off W.E. Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055 through its Corporate Manager.

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Servicing Office: 2nd Floor, SCO 147-148, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

4. Hyundai C/o Amar Prakash Agro India N6221, Jind Road, After IOC Depot. Village Kamomazra Kalan, District Sangrur through its Authorized Signatory.

5. Hyundai, Jaito-Bajakhana Road, Barnala, Punjab-148101 through its Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. MS Gill Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

Sh. NK Garg counsel for opposite parties No. 4 and 5.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Simranjeet Singh filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is a owner and in possession of Car No. PB-03-AJ/8388 Model 2015 and he purchased the same from its registered owner Pushpinder Pal. The car of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 991492023110003981 from bumper to bumper. 

3. It is further alleged that the complainant met with an accident on the night of 11.2.2020 and was badly damaged. The complainant visited the opposite party No. 5 on 12.2.2020 who advised the complainant to visit opposite party No. 4 to get the said car repaired upon which opposite party No. 4 asked the complainant to get survey for the loss caused to the said car upon which the complainant got surveyed his car and submitted the documents for Rs. 1,95,000/- to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The complainant lodged his claim for Rs. 1,95,000/- with the opposite parties and submitted documents. But the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2020. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 20.10.2020 but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 1,95,000/- only repair amount of car alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed written version taking legal objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. It is submitted that vehicle in question is in the name of Pushpinder Pal son of Sita Ram who sold the vehicle to Mr. Ramanjit Singh vide affidavit dated 28.9.2019 so Pushpinder Singh does not have any insurable interest. After that the said vehicle was sold Simranjeet Singh complainant without transferring the RC and insurance policy so the complainant also no insurable interest and complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per provision of GR 17 India Motor Tariff “The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. Further, as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act “The transferee shall within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.” However, in the present case the vehicle was sold by the first owner Pushpinder Pal on 28.9.2019 and date of accident is 16.2.2020 which is much later after the sale deed was executed. So, neither Pushpinder Pal or Ramanjit Singh nor the complainant hold any insurable interest so the complaint qua the answering opposite parties is liable to be dismissed. After the receipt of the claim answering opposite parties depute IRDA Approved Surveyor who assessed the liability to the tune of Rs. 1,51,336/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policyholder, however the claim has been rightly repudiated on the ground of non insurable interest. 

5. On merits, it is admitted that are is in possession of the complainant and he purchased the same from its previous owner. The car is registered in the name of Pushpinder Pal in whose name the insurance policy was obtained from the opposite parties. The RC of the car alongwith insurance policy are still in the name of its previous owner so complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and answering opposite parties. It is admitted that the car was insured vide insurance policy valid from 6.2.2020 to 5.2.2021. The intimation regarding the loss of vehicle was report to the answering opposite parties and after that the the Surveyor was appointed by the answering opposite parties. The matter was got investigated and during investigation it came to the knowledge that car in question was sold by its previous owner in the month of September 2019 and complainant purchased the same through some intermediatery but he did not get the RC of the car and insurance policy transferred in his name even at the time of loss. Rest of the submissions already mentioned in the legal objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking policy and at the time of loss. So, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20.3.2020 and nothing is payable to the complainant. As per claim papers the claim was lodged by Pushpinder Pal Singh. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. However, lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

6. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. 

7. On merits, it is admitted that complainant visited opposite party No. 5 who advised him to visit opposite party No. 4 to get the said car repaired. After the repair of the car and receiving the payment from the complainant the car was delivered to the complainant. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied by the answering opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of RC of Pushpinder Pal Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, copy of invoice Ex.C-8, copy of RC of Simranjeet Singh Ex.C-9, copy of NOC Ex.C-10, copy of whatsapp chant Ex.C-11, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence copy of policy Ex.OP-1.2.3/1, copy of RC Ex.OP-1.2.3/2, copy of DL Ex.OP-1.2.3/3, copy of PAN card Ex.OP-1.2.3/4, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.OP-1.2.3/5, copy of assessment Ex.OP-1.2.3/6, copy of receipt Ex.OP-1.2.3/7, copy of affidavit if Ramanjit Singh Ex.OP-1.2.3/8, copy of estimate Ex.OP-1.2.3/9, copy of claim form Ex.OP-1.2.3/10, copy of letter dated 7.3.2020 Ex.OP-1.2.3/11, copy of report Ex.OP-1.2.3/12, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP-1.2.3/13, affidavit of Suryadeep Thakur Ex.OP-1.2.3/14  and closed the evidence. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 tendered in evidence copy of bill dated 23.5.2020 Ex.OP-4.5/1, copy of gate pass dated 23.5.2020 Ex.OP-4.5/2 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

11. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the complainant is owner in possession of Car bearing registration No. PB-03-AJ-8388 and he has purchased the same from his registered owner Pushpinder Pal. The complainant further alleged that the complainant met with an accident on the night of 11.2.2020 and car was badly damaged. The complainant alleged that he has intimated the opposite parties and opposite parties deputed the Surveyor. The complainant spent Rs. 1,95,000/- on the repair of the said car but the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2020. 

12. On the other hand, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed written version and taking the objections that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The opposite parties mentioned in the written version that the vehicle in question is in the name of Pushpinder Pal who sold the vehicle to Ramanjit Singh vide affidavit dated 28.9.2019 so Pushpinder Pal does not have any insurable interest. The opposite parties alleged that as per provision of GR 17 India Motor Tariff.- The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.” The opposite parties alleged that in the present case the vehicle had sold by its first owner Pushpinder Pal on 28.9.2019 and date of accident was 11.2.2020 which is much later after the sale was executed. The opposite parties alleged that neither Pushpinder Pal or Ramanjit Singh nor the complainant hold any insurable interest so the complaint qua the answering opposite parties is liable to be dismissed besides that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 deputed the Surveyor to assess the liability and surveyor assessed the liability to the tune of Rs. 1,51,336/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 alleged that the claim has been rightly repudiated.

13. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 filed separate written statement and alleged that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint qua the answering opposite parties. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 further mentioned in the written version that after repair of the car and receiving the payment from the complainant, the car was delivered to the complainant.

14. On the perusal of the file it is established that on the date of the accident the car was registered in the name of Pushpinder Pal. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the RC was transferred in the name of the complainant but he did not mention that when the RC was delivered to him. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 argued that the complainant has no insurable interest as the complainant has not applied for with the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 for transfer of the insurance policy. Moreover, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have produced the claim form which was submitted by Pushpinder Pal Ex.OP-1.2.3/10. The complainant produced the repair bill Ex.C-8 which was also issued in the name of Pushpinder Pal. As per rules the complainant has to applied for the transfer of the insurance policy within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle. But on the perusal of the file it came to our notice that till today the complainant has not applied for the transfer of the insurance policy. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 argued that the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 vide letter dated 20.3.2020 Ex.C-3 as per the provision of GR 17 India Motor Tariff and also as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 

15. The learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 produced the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2009 (1) CPJ-158 titled as Madan Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another in which the Hon'ble National Commission held that there being no agreement of transfer of the insurance policy between the insurer and the transferee, the claim filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. 

16. The learned for the opposite parties argued that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

17. In view of the above discussion, it is established that the complainant has no insurable interest and the complainant has not applied for the transfer of the insurance policy which is violation of the provision of the GR 17 of India Motor Tariff and Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        30th Day of March 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member