SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta, Member
United India Insurance Company Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Gopal Krishan Sharma and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 4927 of 2012 with
I.A. No.01 of 2012 (For Stay)
(From the order dated 1.10.2012 in Appeal No.163/2012 of the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh)
Decided on 17.05.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot refuse to transfer insurance policy on transfer of vehicle.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft of car—Transfer of vehicle before theft—Claim repudiated on ground that vehicle was not insured— District Forum directed to pay Rs.4,03,940/- to complainant being insured value of vehicle after deducting depreciation value and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs.10,000/- as costs—Surveyor in its investigation report with regard to theft claim of vehicle has categorically stated that respondent has sent two letters through UPC for transfer of insurance policy in his name—Revision petition dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 11 to 16)

       

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite party No.1 being aggrieved by order dated 1.10.2012, passed by. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased Indigo vehicle, bearing registration No.CH-04-C-4536 from Smt. Prema Mehta. After purchase, the car was transferred in his name by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. The car was got insured by the transferor in her name, before the sale thereof. After the car was transferred in the name of respondent no.1, he approached petitioner on 4.8.2009 for transfer of the insurance policy, in his name but same was not done. On 7.8.2009, respondent no.1 again approached petitioner but dealing official told him to submit a cheque of Rs.680/- on account of transfer fee. It was stated that on 10.8.2009 respondent no.1 through UPC sent the application for transfer of insurance policy alongwith necessary documents and cheque No.278974 dated 7.8.2009 amounting to Rs.680/- to the petitioner but no reply was received.

3. It is further stated that on the night intervening 16/17.3.2010, vehicle in question was stolen from outside his house and said incident was intimated to the Police on 17.3.2010. Accordingly, FIR No.89 dated 20.3.2010 was registered. Thereafter, respondent no.1 intimated the Registering and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh and petitioner as well as respondent no.2, regarding theft of the vehicle. Petitioner deputed an investigator, who visited place of the respondent no.1 and was provided all the necessary papers alongwith untraced intimation dated 25.5.2010. It was further stated that petitioner vide letter dated 14.7.2010 raised objection that Policy had not been transferred in the name of respondent no.1, within 14 days of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The said letter was replied by respondent no1, vide letter dated 26.7.2010. It was further stated that vide letter dated 8.10.2010, petitioner repudiated the claim of respondent no.1 on the ground that he was not insured of the vehicle as per the Insurance Company’s record on the date of theft. It was further stated that as per provisions of law, respondent no.1 informed the petitioner within 14 days of the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle with request that insurance policy, in the name of the earlier owner, be transferred in his name but petitioner did not act upon his request. The repudiation of the claim of respondent no.1 by the Petitioner, being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside. It was further stated that aforesaid acts of petitioner amounted to deficiency in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When grievance of respondent no.1 was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) was filed praying to quash the impugned letter dated 8.10.2010; pay Rs.4,03,940/- being the Insured Declared Value of the stolen value; pay a sum of Rs. one lac on account of travelling expenses incurred by respondent no.1 in connection with his job; pay Rs. one lac as compensation on account of indulgence into unfair trade practice, and rendering deficient service; and pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses

4. Petitioner in its written version, stated that as per their record Smt. Prema Mehta w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mehta was the owner of vehicle No.CH-04-C-4536 and she had got insured the same with them for the period from 28.4.2009 to 27.4.2010. It was further stated that neither respondent no.1 nor Smt. Prema Mehta ever applied for transfer of the insurance policy in the name of respondent no.1, nor they received a cheque of Rs.680/- on account of transfer fee, nor they received any letter dated 10.8.2009 through UPC, alongwith documents, as alleged in the complaint. It was further stated that intimation through UPC was not a recognized

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top