NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Nirmal Singh and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3373 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 08/01/2018 in Appeal No. 545/2017 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 12.4.2019
The District Forum allowed the complaint and State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, revision.
Held, that complainant no. 1 sold the vehicle to complainant no. 2.
Further held, the claim was not payable either to complainant no.1 or to complainant no.2. It was not payable to complainant no.1 since he did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle on the date it met with an accident. It was not payable to complainant no.2 since there was no contract of insurance between her and the petitioner on the date the vehicle met with an accident. (Para 7)
Result: Revision allowed.
IA/23172/2018 (For c/delay)
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing this petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the said delay is condoned subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- as cost with the Legal Aid Account of NCDRC within three weeks from today. The application stands disposed of.
No one is present for the respondents despite respondent no.2 having been served by Post and both the respondents who are husband and wife, having been served dasti. I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the record.
RP/3373/2018
The parents of respondent no.2/complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur purchased a vehicle in the name of complainant no.1/respondent no.1 Nirmal Singh for gifting the same in the marriage of the respondents/complainants. The said vehicle was got insured with the petitioner company. On 13.03.2012, the vehicle met with an accident when being driven by one of their relatives namely Sukhdeep Singh and got damaged. A surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The surveyor declared the vehicle to be a total loss. Thereafter, the marriage of the complainants was dissolved and the vehicle in question was returned to complainant no.2. The vehicle was sold to her. The claim lodged with the petitioner company having not been paid, the respondents/complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia pleaded in its reply that the accident had happened on 19.01.2012 and not on 13.03.2012. It was further stated in the written version that if the date of loss is assumed to be 13.03.2012, the complainants did not have insurable interest in the vehicle, complainant no.1 having already sold the same to complainant no.2 on 09.03.2012.
3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Commission accepted the case of the complainants that the insured vehicle had met with an accident on 13.03.2012 as had been pleaded by them in the Consumer Complaint and not on 29.01.2012 as had been pleaded by the insurer.
5. A perusal of the affidavit sworn by complainant no.1 Nirmal Singh would show that the insured vehicle had already been sold by him to complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur. The said affidavit having been executed on 09.03.2012, the vehicle obviously, was sold on or before that date. The accident having happened on 13.03.2012, complainant no.1 Sh. Nirmal Singh did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle on that date. It would be pertinent to note here that in his affidavit, Mr. Nirmal Singh had also stated that he had received the entire consideration of the vehicle and had delivered its possession to the purchaser Harpreet Kaur.
6. It is not in dispute that Smt. Harpreet Kaur had not got the vehicle transferred in her name on or before 13.03.2012 when it met with an accident. It is also not in dispute that the insurance policy continued to be in the name of complainant no.1 Nirmal Singh and was not transferred in the name of complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur. No application by Harpreet Kaur was submitted to the insurer for transferring the insurance policy in her name. Thus, there was no contract of insurance between complainant no.2 Harpreet Kaur and the petitioner company on the date the vehicle met with an accident. Unless the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the purchaser Harpreet Kaur or she had obtained a new policy in her favour, there would be no contract of insurance between her and the petitioner and therefore, the insurer would not be liable to re-imburse her in the event of a damage to the vehicle till the time the insurance policy is transferred in his name or a fresh insurance cover is obtained by h
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.