Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/892/2022

MANOJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP BHARDWAJ

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/892/2022
Date of Institution	:	27/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2023

 

Manoj s/o Jai Parkash r/o House No.283, Maloya, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. and Head Office :-24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Head Manager/ Authorised representative/signatory.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager/Authorised representative/signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Madan Lal Chaudhary, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Manoj, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased a second hand car bearing registration No.PB27-E-0724 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) from one Lakhbir Singh Sandhu and got its registration certificate transferred in his name.  When the insurance policy of the subject car, in the name of the erstwhile owner, was about to expire, complainant approached the OPs and had purchased a new insurance policy (Ex.C-2) by paying premium from his own account and the same was issued by the OP in the name of the complainant as care of original owner. Unfortunately, on 7.9.2022, the subject car met with an accident, regarding which intimation was given to OPs. The OPs advised the complainant to approach authorised service centre and get the subject car repaired, where he spent an amount of ₹80,562/- vide tax invoice (Ex.C-3).  Claim was also lodged by the complainant with the OPs, but, the same was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 28.9.2022 (Ex.C-4) by mentioning that the insurable interest does not exist as the insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant.  It is further alleged that it is not the case of the complainant that the subject car has been purchased and OPs have not been informed about the change of policy within 14 days of purchase, rather it is a case wherein premium has been paid by the complainant and the policy has not been issued in his name by wrongly mentioning as care of the erstwhile owner. Not only this, even the registration certificate (Ex.C-5) of the subject has already been issued in the name of the complainant.  Despite of the fact that the complainant had purchased the subject policy from the OPs by intimating them that he is the registered owner of the subject car and the premium was also received by them from the complainant, OPs have wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds and said act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi and concealment of facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject car was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 13.3.2022 to 12.3.2023, but, alleged that the said policy was issued in the name of its registered owner Lakhbir Singh Sandhu and the same was not transferred in the name of complainant.  It is further alleged that as the complainant had not applied for transfer of the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of purchase of the subject car, he has no insurable interest in the subject car and the OPs are not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. It is further alleged that the surveyor was deputed to assess the loss and he had given detailed survey report (Annexure OP/R-2) by assessing the loss to the tune of ₹79,061/-.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject car from one Lakhbir Singh Sandhu and after purchasing the same, got its ownership transferred in his name, as is also evident from the copy of registration certificate (Ex.C-5) and further that complainant had purchased the subject policy (Ex.C-2) by paying an amount of ₹18,105/- as premium to the OPs, as is also evident from the copy of statement of account (Ex.C-1) and while issuing the said policy, OPs had issued the same in the name of complainant through Lakhbir Singh Sandhu by showing complainant as “care of” on his given address, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OPs are unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that he had failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant by holding that he has no insurable interest and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the subject policy (Ex.C-2), registration certificate (Ex.C-5) and the relevant provisions of the Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
   3. Perusal of Ex.C-5 clearly indicates that the registration certificate of the subject car had already been transferred in the name of the complainant before the purchase of the subject policy and its validity is upto 3.1.2033. It is further evident from Ex.C-1 that the complainant had transferred an amount of ₹18,105/- i.e. premium amount in the account of the OPs from his personal saving account on 12.3.2022 and accordingly the subject policy was issued on 13.2.2022 and its validity has been shown upto 12.3.2023.  In the column of name and address of insured, OPs have firstly mentioned the name of Lakhbir Singh Sandhu as owner and had also entered “c/o Manoj” (complainant) by giving his address, knowing fully well that complainant is the registered owner of the subject car even as per registration certificate (Ex.C-5), which was in his name and also that the entire premium has been paid by the complainant from his account and there was no role of Lakhbir Singh Sandhu either for payment of premium amount or for obtaining the subject policy, especially when after the transfer of ownership of the subject car in the name of Manoj (complainant), Lakhbir Singh Sandhu has no concern with the same. 
   4. Moreover, the sole defence of the OPs that as the complainant has failed to get the subject policy transferred in his name within 14 days as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim of the complainant was only repudiated as per law, is of no significance, especially when the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable in the present case as the complainant has not prayed for transfer of the policy which was in the name of the erstwhile owner, Lakhbir Singh Sandhu, rather the complainant himself had independently purchased the subject policy by paying premium from his account on the strength of registration certificate (Ex.C-5), which itself proves that the complainant is the registered owner of subject car. 
   5. The provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act even otherwise are applicable in the case of insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks covered under Chapter XI of the Act, which is not at all the case of any party in the instant case. Not only this, the said provision is otherwise applicable where purchaser wants to derive benefit of the insurance policy already issued in the name of previous owner.  Since, in the present case, the complainant had purchased the subject policy by paying premium amount from his own pocket to the OPs, he was not required to apply for transfer of the insurance policy, as is the defence of the OPs.    Hence, it is safe to hold that the OPs were unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
   6. So far as the quantum of relief to be awarded to the complainant is concerned, he has claimed an amount of ₹80,562/- by proving the tax invoice (Ex.C-3).  However, as the surveyor deputed by the OPs has assessed the liability under the subject policy of insurance to the tune of ₹79,061/-, it is safe to hold that the complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by him.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹79,061/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 28.9.2022, till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member