| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 253 of 01-09-2017. Decided on : 08-02-2022. Guntas Singh Brar aged about 23 years S/o Sukhtej Singh R/o # 16610/A, Street No. 10, Harpal Nagar Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd., Block B, Sector 16, Noida 201301, Through its Manager/Authorised Signatory. .......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate For opposite party : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Guntas Singh Brar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Tata AIG General Insurance Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Vehicle No. HR-26-BF-9445 Skoda Laura Model 2010 which was purchased by him from Regd. owner Neelam Hotel on 21-10-2016. The said vehicle was purchased along with its comprehensive (package) Insurance Certificate No. 015154836404 of opposite party w.e.f. 15-11-2015 to 14-11-2016 for the IDV of Rs, 8,16,480/-. The opposite party never supplied any policy with terms and conditions to the complainant. It is alleged that on 21-10-2016 when complainant after taking delivery of the car, was coming from Delhi to Bathinda, the car met with an accident in the revenue limits of PS Kotfatta, District Bathinda. In this regard DDR was duly lodged with the police. The accident took place on the same day i.e. day of purchase. As per Indian Motor Tariff GR-17” on transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer and the transfree 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. It is also alleged that the accident was occurred on the day of purchase of vehicle i.e. 21-10-2016. The complainant intimated the opposite party after the accident. They appointed surveyor Mr. Raj Pul Singhal from Bathinda, who surveyed the vehicle at spot and thereafter the vehicle was shifted with Chandigarh Motor Works, Bathinda as per instructions of the surveyor and opposite party. It is also alleged that with the help of Crane, the vehicle was shifted from spot to Bathinda. Original receipt regarding shifting charges already given to the opposite party through their surveyor. Thereafter the surveyor who surveyed the vehicle also checked the original RC, DL, and Insurance cover note etc., The said surveyor also took the signatures of the complainant on blank claim from, blank consent letter, blank full and final voucher and on other blank forms with the understanding that the entire claim will be paid as the vehicle is completely damaged and the same is total loss. The surveyor and opposite party never sent any survey report to the complainant, whereas it is mandatory. The complainant used to inquire about his claim from the office of the opposite party, but they did not gave any satisfactory reply till date and the opposite party till date did not issue No claim letter to the complainant. Due to non payment of the claim amount of Rs.8,16,480/- by the opposite party, the complainant is suffering mental agony and pains for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay total loss amount of Rs. 8,16,480/- on account of loss to the car and Rs, 3500/- on account of crane charges along with interest @ 18% p.a. with damages to the extent of Rs, 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, pains and Rs, 50,000/- as litigation expenses of this complaint. Upon notice the opposite party put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite party, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party, hence, the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. That the complainant has no right to file this present compliant as he does not have any insurable interest in the insured vehicle and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present compliant by his act and conduct and the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. On merits, the opposite party denied that the complainant is owner of vehicle in question. The complainant has not placed on file any document to prove his alleged ownership. It is further denied that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question along with insurance. It is pleaded that no request was ever made by any of the parties for transfer of ownership in favour of new owner of the vehicle as required by GR-17 of All India Motor Tariff.. Since, the complainant has no privity of contract with the opposite party, the question of supplying any terms and conditions does not rise. However, it is submitted that the policy No. 0151548364 was issued in the name of M/s Neelam Hotel From 15-11-2015 to 14-11-2016. The copy of policy along with terms and conditions was duly supplied to M/s Neelam Hotel. However, an intimation was received regarding the alleged accident. It is further pleaded that neither of the parties has ever approached/informed the opposite party for sale of vehicle and transfer of insurance in the name of new owner. It is pleaded that the contents of GR 17 of Motor tariff as interpreted are denied. It is submitted that as per GR 17 only liability cover is deemed to be transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred. It is further pleaded that transfer of the “own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor, if the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the no claim bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee's entitlement, if any and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer. A fresh proposal from duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both liability only and package policies. Transfer of package policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal from duly filled and signed. The old certificate of insurance for the vehicle , is required to be surrendered and a free of Rs. 50./- is to be collected for issue of fresh certificate in the name of the transferee,if for any reason, the old certificate of insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new certificate of insurance is issued”. It is further pleaded that intimation was received regarding the alleged accident and the opposite party deputed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor, Mr. Rajpal Singh Singhal who surveyed the vehicle and assessed the loss for Rs, 2,55,294/-. The required documents were not provided to the surveyor/ opposite party. A letters dated 12-11-2016 and 02-12-2016 by the surveyor and letters dated 21-12-2016 and 11-01-2017 were sent by the opposite party requesting for documents from insured, M/s Neelam Hotel. The opposite party wrote letters dated 21-12-2016 and 11-01-2017 calling upon the owner/insured, M/s Neelam Hotel to submit requisite documents including claim form, copy of police report, details of injuries to third party/occupants, DL and RC, KYC form and NEFT details but no reply was received and this claim was closed. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 08-01-2018 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of certificate of insurance (Ex.C-2), photocopy of RC (Ex.C-3), photocopy of DL (Ex.C-4), photocopy of DDR (Ex.C-5), photographs (Ex.C-6 to C-10) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjay Bhagat, Deputy Vice President dated 26-02-2018 (Ex.OP1/1), affidavit of Raj Paul Singhal, Surveyor dated 26-02-2018 (Ex.OP1/2), photocopy of policy with terms and conditions containing pages 1 to 23 (Ex.OP1/3,) photo copy of letters and postal receipts (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/11), Photocopy of survey report ( Ex.OP1/12) and closed evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Insurance Claim of Vehicle No. HR-26-BF-9445 Skoda Laura. The complainant alleged that on 21-10-2016, he purchased the vehicle in question from M/s Neelam Hotel, Delhi, and after purchasing the same, while coming from Delhi to Bathinda, the vehicle/car in question met with an accident and hence, the complainant has filed claim with the opposite party. To prove his case, complainant has placed on file documents i.e. his affidavit (Ex. C-1) copy of Insurance policy (Ex. C-2), photocopy of registration certificate of vehicle (Ex. C-3), driving licence of complainant (Ex. C-4), copy of DDR (Ex. C-5) and photographs (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-9). Insurance policy and registration certificate produced on file by complainant are in the name of Neelam Hotel. The complainant has neither brought on file any document of ownership of said car nor produced any document to prove purchase of said car from its registered owner. The complainant has mentioned/taken shelter of Indian Motor GR-17, which no doubt depicts that transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer under recorded delivery to insurer with details of RC etc., meaning thereby that since the vehicle met with an accident on the day of purchase, complainant has pleaded that he has got 14 days time for getting the vehicle transferred but surprisingly in the case in hand, complainant has not placed on file even a single document to prove that he purchased the vehicle in question. When there is no document on file showing purchase or ownership of complainant, he has no privity of contract with Insurance Company. Complainant has failed to prove that he is consumer of the opposite party. Thus, in such circumstances, complainant is neither consumer of the opposite party nor he has any insurable interest. Therefore in view of foregoing discussions, this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the complainant does not come under the definition of 'consumer'. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 8-2-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
