ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 642 of 2016
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Vrindavan, Tower-2, Fifth Floor, Suresh Mall,
M.G. Road, Agra through its Manager Legal,
1st Floor, Suraj Deep Complex, Jopling Road,
Hazratganj, Lucknow. ...Appellant.
Versus
1- Ritu Tewari w/o Rajendra Kumar Tewari,
R/o B-177, Avas Vikas Colony, City and
District, Etawah.
2- Rajeev Kumar Yadav s/o Satyadev Singh Yadav,
R/o 132, .B. Vidyut Apagrah Sansthan, Power
House, Kunaira, City and District, Etawah. ..Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri M.K. Mishra, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
Date 13.12.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2016 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Etawah in complaint case no.36 of 2013, Ritu Tewari vs. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & anr., whereby the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay insured amount of Rs.4,65,000.00 to the complainant.
As per the case of the complainant, she is the owner of vehicle no.UP 75 K 7707 which was purchased by her on 30.1.2010 from the opposite party no.2 Rajeev Kumar Yadav who took the insurance policy for all risks. The insured period was 30.11.2009 to 4.11.2010. The complainant prayed for change of name on the insurance policy and deposited required fees to the agent of the appellant but due to fault of the agent, receipt was issued in the name of the opposite party no.2 instead of complainant. The insured vehicle was stolen by unknown persons on 30.6.2011. Information was given to the policy on control room no.100. FIR was registered under
(2)
section 379 IPC. After investigation, FR was submitted which was accepted by the court concerned.
The opposite party contended that no information was given to the control room and no agent is deputed for work on behalf of the appellant. The belated FIR was lodged by the complainant. The policy is issued in the name of Rajeev Kumar Yadav. There is no existence of insured interest in favour of the complainant. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant on the theft of the insured vehicle.
Ld. District Forum concluded that it is the mistake of agent who issued the receipt of the amount in the name of the opposite party no.2, therefore, complainant has committed no mistake while getting the insurance policy. Therefore, she is entitled for damages due to theft of the insured vehicle and passed the order accordingly.
This judgment is challenged on the ground that no cause of action ever been arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the ld. District Forum, Etawah. Ld. District Forum filed to consider that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party/appellant insurance company. The ld. District Forum also failed to appreciate the point of mis-joinder of the parties and non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellant insurance company never received any consideration from the respondent/complainant ever issued any policy in the name of the complainant. There is no insurable contract between the appellant and the respondent. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
We have heard ld. counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.
As per allegation of the complaint, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question and got it transferred in her name on 30.1.2010 but she never informed the insurance company within stipulated period of 14 days. The complainant never mentioned the name of agent to whom the premium of insurance was paid by the complainant. She never notified the mistake to the company regarding the name on the policy which was issued by the appellant company in favour of Rajeev Kumar Yadav. Therefore, finding of the ld.
(3)
District Forum is against the facts and evidence available on the record.
In a case of Sandeep Gupta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision petition no.2355 of 2012, it was settled by the Hon’ble National Commission that if the transferee failed to inform the insurance company about transfer of registration certificate in his/her name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee then the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim.
In the case in hand, the complainant never took the insurance policy in her name. She never notified the mistake if any committed by the insurance company while issuing the insurance policy in the name of Rajeev Kumar Yadav. In continuation of the previous policy, the policy was issued by the appellant company in the name of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav and not in the name of the complainant. Therefore, complainant has no insurable interest with the appellant insurance company. The judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is against the provisions of law and condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.2.2016 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum, Etawah in complaint case no.36 of 2013 is set aside and the complaint dismissed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafr, PA I
Court 2
