Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.36/2010
Date of Institution 1-1-2010
Date of Decision : 23-3-2011
Gian Chand son of Sh. Nairu Ram resident of village and Post Office Bhanera, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainants
V/S
The Oriental Insurance company Ltd through its Divisional Manager Vidya Bhawan Hospital road, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
…..Opposite party
For the complainant: Sh. T.C.Goel , Advocate
For the opposite party: Sh. Dikan Rana, Advocate
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for reimbursement of the loss caused to vehicle bearing No. HP-30-1168 in an accident on 27-2-2009 and in addition, compensation and costs of litigation have also been demanded.
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of vehicle No HP-30-1168 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy No 6546 commencing from 28-2-2008 to 27-2-2009. He appointed Sh. Dev Raj as Manager to look after the affairs of the vehicle. In the month of September 2008, the complainant executed affidavits for the sale of the vehicle in favour of Sh.Dev Raj but it was not acted upon. The vehicle remained in the possession of the complainant as owner. However, Sh.Dev Raj continued to act as Manager of the vehicle. On 27-12-2008, the vehicle met with an accident and he has suffered loss of Rs.1, 01,962.51 paise. Intimation about the accident was given to the opposite party who appointed Sh. Mahinder K Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the damage. However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle has been sold to Sh.Dev Raj but in fact Sh.Dev Raj has acted as Manager of the vehicle and affidavits executed in relation to the sale of the vehicle were not given effect to. Hence, the present complaint has been filed for reimbursement of the loss caused to the vehicle.
3 The opposite party by filing reply has contested and contended the averments of the complaint. It is submitted that when accident took place Dev Raj was the owner of the vehicle and not the complainant. The vehicle was purchased by him on 9-9-2008 and affidavits were also executed in this regard. Therefore, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle when accident took place and accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated.
4. In the rejoinder, the complainant has re-asserted and re-affirmed the contentions put-forth in the complaint.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record.
6. Indisputably, the complainant is recorded as owner of the vehicle bearing No.HP-30-1168 and this vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No 6546 starting from 28-2-2008 to 27-2-2009. In the meanwhile, the complainant entered into an agreement for the sale of vehicle in favour of Sh.Dev Raj and both the parties have executed affidavits in this regard. However, this transfer has not been reflected in the registration certificate or insurance certificate. After this transaction, the vehicle met with an accident on 27-12-2008 and Sh. Mohinder K Sharma was also appointed to assess the damage caused to the vehicle and he came to the conclusion that the estimate cost of repair is Rs.45,380.01 paise. Accordingly, opposite party has repudiated the claim lodged by the complainant.
7 Within the aforesaid back ground of the case, ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the repudiation of the claim is wrong and illegal because Sh.Dev Raj was simply deputed as Manager to look after the affairs of the vehicle and further transaction of the sale was never acted upon between the complainant and Sh.Dev Raj. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the opposite parting has contended that when the vehicle has been sold, the complainant is not competent to file the present complaint as he has no insurable interest in the vehicle.
8 In view of the facts of the case and submissions made by the parties, the question for determination is whether by virtue of executing the affidavits of sale of the vehicle, the complainant is left with no insurable interest in the vehicle. It is settled law that sale of moveable property is complete with the delivery of possession. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act gives details about the requirement for transfer of the vehicle. Section 157 of the said Act provides that after transfer of the vehicle, the transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary change in the certificate of insurance. The complainant has executed affidavit for the sale of the vehicle on 9-9-2008. Admittedly, when accident took place the possession was with Sh.Dev Raj. The complainant has taken a plea that Sh.Dev Raj was working simply as Manager and no transaction of sale was complete till that date. No doubt, the transferee/transferor has not complied with provisions of law to complete the transfer, but this does not mean that the sale has not been made. When accident took place, Sh. Mani Ram was driving the vehicle and he lodged report with the Police stating that Dev Raj is the owner of the vehicle. Motor Claim Form was also filled in by Sh.Dev Raj as owner of the vehicle. The contention of the complainant that Sh.Dev Raj was appointed as Manager appears to be wrong in view of the submission made in the claim form by the Sh.Dev Raj and further lodging of the report with the Police by Sh. Mani Ram, driver. It also does not appeal to the reason that after execution of the affidavits for the sale of the vehicle, Sh.Dev Raj will continue to act as Manager.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we come to this conclusion that Sh.Dev Raj has purchased the vehicle from the complainant but necessary formalities with regard to transfer of registration certificate and insurance policy have not been completed. Hence, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. As a result thereof, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
11. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
23-3-2011 (Rajeev Bhardwaj) President
DKM ( Lal Singh) Member