Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Shri. R.S. Sharma, President, Miss Heena Thakkar, Member and Shri. D.K. Poddar, Member
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SUBHASH THAKUR - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/2016/160
Decided on : 17-06-2016
Shri Manoj Prasad, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri S. Pandya, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the new owner must make a timely request for a change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy to maintain insurable interest in the vehicle.
Headnote:
Insurance - Transfer of Ownership - GR.17, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - The judgment discusses the transfer of ownership of a vehicle and the insurable interest of the new owner. It highlights the legal provisions of GR.17 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and their interpretation in the context of insurance claims. The court found that the new owner failed to make a timely request for a change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy, and therefore, did not have insurable interest in the vehicle. The court held that the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim and did not commit any deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car and transferred ownership, but the insurance policy was not transferred in his name. The insurance company repudiated the claim, leading to a consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the new owner did not have insurable interest in the vehicle as he failed to make a timely request for a change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy. The insurance company's repudiation of the claim was justified, and no deficiency in service was found.
Issues: The main issue was whether the new owner had insurable interest in the vehicle and if the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of GR.17 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to determine the transfer of ownership and insurable interest. It held that the new owner's failure to request a change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy within the specified time rendered him without insurable interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The complaint of the respondent was dismissed.
ORDER
Shri Justice R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.549/2014. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 (complainant) and directed that :-
(a) The O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company will pay the claim amount Rs. 29,930/- and amount of stepney Rs. 4,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 33,930/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05.09.2014 i.e. filing of the complaint till date of payment.
(b) The O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony.
(c) The O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.11.2013 the complainant purchased a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. C.G.04-H-6664 from Naveen Jaynani through agent Ram Khatwani and on 25.11.2013 itself the complainant gave amount to the agent Ram Khatwani from transfer of ownership of the vehicle and for change of name in the insurance policy. Ram Khatwani informed the complainant that within a period of one week, in the R.C. Book and in the insurance policy the name will be got changed. The O.P. No. 2 Ram Khatwani, got change in the ownership on 05.12.2013 and in the meantime on 22.12.2013 while the car was standing, it was dashed by unknown vehicle The claim was submitted before O.P. No. 1 through O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 got filled up the claim form. In the meantime, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in which he spent a sum of Rs.29,330/- and the amount of the stepney was Rs. 4,000/-. The claim of the complainant was registered as Claim No. F 0355674. After lapse of long time, the complainant contacted the O.P. No. 1, it was informed that his claim was repudiated. The complainant contacted the O.P. No. 2, then he gave vague reply. The complainant himself went to the Insurance Company and made inquiry then he was informed that at the time of accident the insurance policy was not transferred in his name and on 16.01.2014 policy was transferred in his name. The complainant informed the Branch Manager and Mr. Raghu that on 25.11.2011 the complainant provided fees for transfer of policy in his name and transfer of ownership to the O.P. No. 2 Ram Khatwani and Ram Khatwani informed the complainant that he deposited the fees with the O.P. No. 1 for transfer of the insurance policy prior to 22.12.2013. The O.P. No. 1 deliberately committed delay and did not change name in the insurance policy. The complainant had paid the fees for change of name in the insurance policy, but even then the Insurance Company changed the name in the insurance policy on 16.01.2014, whereas the complainant provided all the amount to the authorised agent of the Insurance Company, Ram Khatwani on 25.11.2013. It is settled law that if amount is received by the agent then it will be presumed that the Insurance Company has received the amount. The Insurance Company committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practise by changing the name in the policy belated and by repudiating the claim of the complainant. Ram Khatwani got the ownership transferred on 04.12.2013 but for change of name in the insurance policy amount was provided to him and according to him he provided the amount to the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company transfer the policy belatedly. The O.P. No. 2 is authorised agent of the O.P. No. 1 and if the O.P. No. 2 committed any mistake then the O.P. No. 2 is liable for the same because the complainant believed on O.P. No. 2 and provided the entire amount. If the O.P. No. 2 deposited the amount in the Insurance Company belatedly, the it comes in the category of deficiency in servi
