Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Sunder, President and Neena Sandhu, Member
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RAJINDER KAUR - Respondent
First Appeal No. 334 of 2011
Decided on : 16-04-2012
Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Varinder Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for insurable interest in an insurance claim, as well as the application of GR-17 and the interpretation of previous case law in determining the liability of the opposite parties.
Headnote:
Insurance - Insurable Interest - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - GR-17 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kamal Tours and Travels, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Divya Prashad, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalip Kumar - [Insurance] - [Insurable Interest] - [GR-17, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12] - The court discussed the insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle, the application of GR-17, and the principle of law established in previous cases. The court highlighted the requirement for the transferee to inform the insurer of the transfer of ownership within 14 days and emphasized that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle, got it insured, and subsequently sold it to another party. The vehicle caught fire during the policy period, and the complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking compensation for the damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident, as she had already sold it to another party. The court also held that the opposite parties were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant for the damage caused to the vehicle.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident, and whether the opposite parties were liable to pay compensation for the damage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of GR-17 and previous case law to establish that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order of the District Forum was set aside. The complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
Sham Sunder, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the opposite parties (now appellant, as the appeal has been filed by opposite party No. 1 only), as under:
"In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 6,20,000 to the complainant towards the claim of the insured vehicle. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, along with Rs. 20,000 towards costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the awarded amount, along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs. 20,000.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased the vehicle, bearing registration No. HR-70-A-2367 from Sh. Gurinderpal Singh, and subsequently, she got Registration Certificate transferred, in her name. The vehicle, in question, was got insured with the opposite parties, for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. Necessary changes were also got made, in the insurance policy. The complainant was allotted new registration No. CH-01-L-1622 (in fact CH04L-1622). Thereafter, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Sunil Kumar. On 18.4.2010, during the currency of the policy, when the vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar, it caught fire. Mr. Sunil Kumar, called the Fire Brigade immediately, but in the meanwhile, the car was found to be badly damaged. DDR No. 7 dated 18.4.2010 (Annexure C-4) was also lodged in this regard. The Surveyor carried out the spot inspection of the vehicle on 21.4.2010 at Panipat, and gave his report dated 17.5.2010, mentioning therein, that few parts of the car were missing, as it was standing on the Highway for 2-3 days unattended. The Surveyor demanded documents, such as Registration Certificate, Driving Licence, Identity proof, Fire Brigade report, etc. It was stated that despite completion of all the formalities, and even after the service of legal notice dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure -5), upon the opposite parties, they did not settle the claim. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. The opposite parties, in their written version, admitted that the vehicle in question, was insured with them for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. It was stated that since the complainant had already sold the vehicle, in favour of Sunil Kumar, but neither the registration certificate nor the insurance policy had been transferred in his favour, and as such, neither she, nor the vendee (Sunil Kumar), had insurable interest. It was further stated that thus the opposite parties were not liable to indemnify her (complainant). It was further stated that after the claim was lodged with the opposite parties, with regard to the damage, caused to the vehicle, in the aforesaid incident, M/s Royal Associates were appointed to investigate the matter. The Surveyor/Investigator, submitted his report to the effect, that the claim was not genuine. It was further stated that the Surveyor/Investigator opined in his re
