State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahesh Kumar Agrawal vs B.M., Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr. on 30 January, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/2015/207
Instituted on : 27.06.2015
Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Yugal Kishore Agrawal,
Occupation Vehicle Owner,
R/o : Lochan Nagar,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office - Jagatpur, Near Bajaj Show Room,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
2. Smt. Geeta Singh, W/o Shri Shatrughan Singh,
Occupation - Previous Vehicle Owner,
R/o : Gandhi Nagar,
Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). .... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Suryakant Sharma, for appellant.
Shri Raj Awasthi, for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Dated : 30/01/2016 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G). (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case // 2 // No.151/2014. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was registered owner of the vehicle Pickup bearing registration No.O.R.23--B-7811 and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) sold the above vehicle to the appellant (complainant)on 23.07.2012 and the same was got transferred in the name of the appellant (complainant) in concerned R.C. Book. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) who was previous owner of the said vehicle obtained insurance policy from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) bearing policy No.193400/31/2013/2493, which was effective for the period from 19.07.2012 to 18.07.2013. After purchasing the said vehicle, the appellant (complainant) contacted with the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) on 30.07.2012 for transferring the insurance policy of the said vehicle in his name. The employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) informed the appellant (complainant) that after transfer of the name in the R.C. Book, the insurance is automatically transferred and there is no need to transfer the name in the insurance certificate. The employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) further informed the appellant (complainant) that after expiry of the period of insurance, the insurance will be directly done in the name of the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) // 3 // believed on the versionof the employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). On 21.01.2013 the electrical items were loaded in the said vehicle and the driver of vehicle Gautam Singh had taken the vehicle along labourer/Cleaner Devanand and Sanjeev from Raigarh to Bankheta and after unloading the above goods, they were returning back to Raigarh on 21.01.2013. At about 9 P.M. near culvert at Village Sohanpur, for giving side to the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction, the driver/deceased Gautam Singh slowed his vehicle and vehicle was parked in the side, but due to slipping/sinking of the soil, the pickup vehicle became unbalance/uncontrolled and dashed with a tree due to which the driver Gautam Singh died in the spot and the Cleaner Devanand Singh and Labour Sanjeev Singh, who were sitting in the vehicle sustained injuries. The vehicle was completely damaged due to the accident. The appellant (complainant) immediately gave oral intimation regarding the incident to the Police Station, Lailunga and respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). After receiving intimation regarding the incident, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) sent Surveyors, who conducted survey. The Surveyors demanded documents from the appellant (complainant) in response to which the appellant (complainant) provided copies of insurance policy, driving licence of the driver and R.C. Book and after seeing the above documents, the Surveyor told the appellant (complainant) that the insurance policy is in the name of respondent // 4 // No.2 (O.P.No.2), who is previous owner of the vehicle due to which claim form would be filled up by respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and later on the insurance policy and claim would be transferred in the name of the appellant (complainant) and payment of the claim would be made. The appellant (complainant) was not aware regarding the rules of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) therefore, believed on the statement of the Surveyor. The appellant (complainant) followed the instructions given by the Surveyor. The Surveyor contacted the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and tried to convince her. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) signed the insurance and claim transfer form bonafidely. The proceeding for submitting claim was started by the Surveyor and appellant (complainant) was assured by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) that at the earliest the claim amount would be paid. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) informed the appellant (complainant) that she received notice on 12.07.2013 which was sent by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). The appellant (complainant) also perused the above notice and found that the above notice had been given in respect of the claim case of the vehicle and information was also sought from the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the effect that the R.C. Book of the above vehicle is in the name of the appellant (complainant) and the insurance policy is in her name, therefore, the claim amount cannot be given and the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) sought reply in respect of the claim case regarding which on 29.07.2013, the respondent No.2 // 5 // (O.P.No.2) sent her reply to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) on 29.07.2013 and made aware the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.2) regarding all the facts and informed that she is not concerned with the above vehicle and also with the claim and she gave her consent to give claim amount to the appellant (complainant). When the appellant (complainant) came to know regarding this fact then on 01.08.2013 he submitted an application in the office of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and requested to pay the amount of compensation but till date the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not take any action and also did not pay the amount of compensation to the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) also requested the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) to pay the compensation, but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is not giving any reply. Lastly on 05.05.2014, the appellant (complainant) sought information from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) regarding his claim but the clerk of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) refused to give information, therefore, the appellant (complainant) sent notice to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) through advocate, which was received by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not give reply of the above notice. The appellant (complainant) is repeatedly requesting the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) to pay the amount of repairing bill, but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is avoiding to pay the amount by saying that amount will be paid and thus respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) // 6 // committed deficiency in service. Hence, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) filed its written statement and denied the allegations leveled by the appellant (complainant) against it in the complaint. The appellant (complainant) did not give any intimation regarding the alleged accident to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and he also did not appear before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for any taking action. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any relief from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). The appellant (complainant) did not incur a sum of Rs.1,79,155/- in repairing of the vehicle. The appellant (complainant) did not personally contact to the office of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for paying claim amount and the appellant (complainant) did not contact the respondent No.1 (O.P.) lastly on 05.05.2014. No cause has accrued to the appellant (complainant) to send notice through advocate. No cause of action has accrued to the appellant (complainant) to file complaint. The appellant (complainant) has filed the complaint on false and frivolous grounds, which is not maintainable. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get total amount of Rs.2,77,417/-. On 08.02.2013 for the first the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) submitted motor claim form before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and annexed // 7 // estimate of Kanhaiya Automobiles Works, Raigarh for Rs.1,79,155/- and copy of First Information Report. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) appointed Shri Anand Mohan Goswami as Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle in presence of the representative of respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and also in presence of the person, who provided estimate to the appellant and the Surveyor submitted his report on 14.02.2013. The Surveyor gave his report on the basis of condition of the vehicle and calculated the amount payable according to the entire items as mentioned in the estimate. Thus, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) studied the Survey Report and estimate and thereafter calculated the amount to be sanctioned and sent notice to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) on 06.05.2013 asking to produce cash memo / bills in respect of expenses incurred in respect of repairing of the vehicle, but the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) did not submit any bill. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) vide application dated 29.07.2013 expressed that she has not filled up any form and she did not have information regarding claim procedure or filling up of the form and she is not concerned with the above vehicle The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver Gautam Singh. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the insured is not having any right to made claim regarding the damages caused. Till expiry of period of the insurance policy, the appellant (complainant) or respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) did not give intimation to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) regarding sale of // 8 // the vehicle and did not take any action to transfer the insurance policy in favour of the purchaser of the vehicle. According to the amendment made in the R.C. and the expression made by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) on the date of alleged accident she was not owner of the above vehicle. After sale of the vehicle, the insurance policy which was issued in favour of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was expired. Only by purchasing the above vehicle, the appellant (complainant) is not having any right towards conditions of the insurance policy. There is no agreement between the appellant (complainant) and the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and in this circumstance, the appellant (complainant) has no right to make demand the compensation by filing complaint. The complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) filed her written statement and averred that earlier the vehicle Pickup bearing registration No.O.R.-23- B-7811 was under her ownership which was insured under Policy No.193400/31/2013/2493 for the period from 19.07.2012 to 18.07.2013. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was in need of the money for domestic expenses, therefore, she sold the above vehicle to the appellant (complainant) on 23.07.2012 and after purchasing the vehicle the appellant (complainant) got transferred his name in the R.C. Book of the vehicle. The vehicle of the appellant (complainant) Pickup bearing // 9 // registration No.OR-23-B-7811 met with an accident on 21.01.2013 in which the driver of the vehicle Gautam Singh died on spot and Cleaner Devanand and Labour Sanjeev Singh, who were seated in the vehicle sustained injuries and the vehicle of the appellant (complainant) was completely damaged and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) also received information regarding the same. Prior to the accident the above vehicle was sold by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the appellant (complainant) and the appellant (complainant) being owner of the above vehicle got his name transferred in the R.C. Book . In this circumstance it is assumed that as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the insurance has been automatically transferred. In this regard, the wife of the deceased/driver of the vehicle namely Mamta Singh filed complaint before the Commissioner/Labour Court, Raigarh in which respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was made party. The case was registered as 12/W.C. Act/2013/Fatal. The Labour Court, Raigarh passed order on 13.02.2014 and directed the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) to pay the amount of compensation. In pursuance of the above order, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) had deposited the amount in the Court. Thus, the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) is liable to pay the compensation to the to the appellant (complainant) in respect of damage caused to the vehicle in question in the accident, which was under ownership of the appellant (complainant). The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) with an intention not to pay compensation, filled up claim // 10 // form in the name of respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) through their Surveyor and after making promise to transfer the claim form, later on they refused. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) has no objection if the amount of compensation in respect of damage to the vehicle is paid to the appellant (complainant). The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) is not responsible to pay any compensation to the appellant (complainant) as mentioned in para 7 of the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2).
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint.
6. The appellant (complainant) has filed documents. Document No.1 is bill of Kanhaiya Automobile Works, document No.2 is postal receipt, document No.3 is registered notice dated 02.06.2014 sent by Shri G.R. Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the appellant (complainant) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raigarh (C.G.), document No.4 is envelope sent to Shri G.R. Yadav, document No.5 is reply dated 23.06.2014 sent by Shri Yashwant Shadangi, Advocate on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Itwari Bazar, Raigrh to Shri G.R. Yadav, Advocate in response to his notice dated 02.06.2014, document No.6is letter dated 25.07.2012 sent by respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, // 11 // document No.7 is letter dated 12.07.2013 sent by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh (C.G.) to Smt. Geeta Singh, respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), document No.8 is letter dated 01.08.2013 sent by the appellant (complainant) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Raigarh (C.G.), document No.9 is letter dated 29.07.2013 sent by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raigarh (C.G.), document No.10 is driving licence of Gautam Singh, document No.11 is Certificate of Registration, document No.12 is Registration Certificate Particulars, issued by Government of Odisha, Odisha Motor Vehicle Department, Regional Transport Office, Jharsuguda, document No.13 is receipt of fees/tax, document No.14 is Certificate of Fitness, document No.15 is copy of complaint Case No.12/W.C.Act/213/Fatal filed before Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.).
7. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has filed documents. Documents are Motor Claim Form, Estimate given by Kanhaiya Automobiles Works, Raigarh, Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 14.02.2013 of Shri Anand Mohan Goswami, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, First Information Report (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.), letter dated 05.05.2013 sent by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Naya Ganj, Raigarh (C.G.) to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2).
// 12 //
8. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) has filed documents. Document No.1 is letter dated 12.07.2013 sent by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), document No.2 is letter dated 25.07.2012 sent by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, document No.3 is letter dated 29.07.2013 sent by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.).
9. Shri Suryakant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the vehicle in question was owned by the appellant (complainant) and the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the appellant (complainant) and was duly registered in the name of the appellant (complainant), therefore, the appellant (complainant) has insurable interest on the vehicle in question. The transferee Smt. Geeta Singh, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) contacted with the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and informed regarding transfer of the vehicle in question to the appellant (complainant) and requested the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) to transfer the insurance policy in the name of the appellant (complainant), then employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) informed the appellant (complainant) that the vehicle was transferred // 13 // in the name of the appellant (complainant) as per the R.C. Book, therefore, the insurance policy will be automatically transferred and three is no need to transfer the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy and also informed that after expiry of period of the insurance, the appellant (complainant) will directly obtain insurance policy in his name. The appellant (complainant) believed on the above version of the employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), therefore, the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation under the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
10. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that Smt. Geeta Singh, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) transferred the vehicle in question to the appellant (complainant), but the appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) regarding transfer of the vehicle in question in his favour and he did not bother to change the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy instead of name of the previous owner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He place reliance on Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996(1) T.A.C. 340 (SC).
// 14 //
11. None appeared before us on 23.01.2016 when the case is fixed for final hearing.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
13. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Smt. Geeta Singh sent a letter to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) on 29.07.2013 (document No.9) in which she mentioned that the vehicle Pickup bearing registration No.O.R.-23-B-7811 was transferred to Mahesh Kumar Agrawal. In the said letter in para No.4, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) specifically mentioned that she obtained insurance policy and in the insurance policy the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) is still mentioned as insured, therefore, she has insurable interest on the above vehicle. The appellant (complainant) Mahesh Kumar Agrawal also sent letter to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) on 01.08.2013 (document No.8) in which he mentioned that he submitted claim form along with documents and he was informed by the Surveyor that the insurance policy is still in existence in the name of Smt. Geeta Singh, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation and after transferring the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy, the claim // 15 // amount would be paid to the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) have pleaded that they contacted with the employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for transferring the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy instead of name of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), Smt. Geeta Singh but the employee of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) told them that after transfer of the name of the appellant (complainant) in the R.C. Book, there is no need to transfer the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy. The appellant (complainant) filed letter dated 29.07.2013 (document No.9) written by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), which is addressed to The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.). In the said letter endorsement of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited regarding receipt of the above letter is not present. Simply the seal of the Insurance Company has been affixed which did not bear any signature or date. Merely affixing round seal, it is not sufficient to establish that respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) sent letter to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for transferring the name of the appellant (complainant) in the insurance policy in place of her name.
14. In Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996(1) T.A.C. 340 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-
// 16 // "10. ..............It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of Insurance together with the policy of Insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to who the motor vehicle is transferred." If the Policy of Insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle....."
15. It is not disputed that the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) was previous owner of the vehicle Pickup bearing registration No.O.R.23- B-7811 and later on the said vehicle was transferred to the appellant (complainant). The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) admitted that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) has filed document No.7 i.e. copy of letter dated 12.07.2013 sent by the Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Itwari Bazar, Naya Ganj, Raigarh (C.G.) to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Smt. Geeta Singh, (the same document has also been filed by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) which is placed at page No.89 of record of the District Forum), in which it is mentioned thus :-
"On close scrutiny of the papers submitted by you, in support of your claim viz-a-viz the terms and conditions of the policy issued, we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable on the following grounds :-
// 17 // "In policy name of insured is Smt. Geeta Singh while in RC Book name of owner is Mr. Mahesh Agrawal. Insurance policy was not transferred in the name of new owner i.e. Mr. Mahesh Agrawal."
16. It appears that the vehicle in question had already been sold by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Smt. Geeta Singh to the appellant (complainant) Mahesh Kumar Agrawal and the appellant (complainant) and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) both have not filed any document which shows that they informed the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) regarding transfer of the vehicle and requested to change the name of the insured in the insurance policy. Even the appellant (complainant) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) both have not moved any application before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for changing the name of the insured in the insurance policy. The appellant (complainant) had ample opportunity to move such application before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) but he did not do so.
17. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mushtaq Khan & Anr. II (2015) CPJ 145 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle as well as insurance policy not transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident, petitioner was not liable to make any payment towards claim. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on judgment delivered by me reported in I (2014) CPJ 493 (NC) - Sandeep Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., in // 18 // which it was held that if transferee fails to inform Insurance Co. about transfer of registration certificate in his name and policy is not transferred in his name, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay claim in case of own damage of vehicle. Same view has been taken by me in I (2014) CPJ 128 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Thakur. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), Shri Narayan Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on which State Commission has also placed reliance in which it was observed that benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle. In the aforesaid case, accident occurred on 2.8.1995, but after 30.06.2012, as per GR 17, subsequent purchaser was under an obligation to get the vehicle and insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days from the date from the date of transfer of registration certificate in his name for claiming damages to the vehicle. In the case in hand, neither registration certificate was transferred in the name of complainant, nor insurance policy stood transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident and in such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments complainant was not entitled to any claim regarding damages to the vehicle and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed."
18. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Laxminarayan Bhutada & Anr. II (2015) CPJ 167 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 19 // "9. Though the transfer was made in May, 2007, no application was made before the RTO for transfer of ownership. Section 50(1)(b) clearly lays down, as under :-
"the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration."
19. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalip Kumar, IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "transferee fails to inform Insurance Company about transfer of Registration Certificate in his name - Policy is not transferred in name of transferee then Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay claim in case of own damage of vehicle - Insurance Company justified in repudiating the claim."
20. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamal Tours and Travels, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. It is not in dispute that Respondent had got the vehicle insured with the Petitioner / Insurance Company which was involved in an accident causing loss of the vehicle and which was assessed by the Petitioner's Surveyor at Rs.2,57,455/-. There is, however, credible // 20 // documentary evidence in the instant case that at the time when the accident took place, insuree had already sold the vehicle to another person. He also did not inform the Petitioner/Insurance Company regarding the sale of vehicle nor was the vehicle transferred in the name of new owner. As stated by the Counsel for Petitioner, in a case under similar circumstances, this Commission has given a clear ruling that if a vehicle is sold by the insuree to another person without intimation to the Insurance Company then in case of any claim covered under the insurance policy, the insuree ceases to have an insurable interest."
21. In the case of Mushtaq Mohd. & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., I (2013) CPJ 64 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, observed that "complainant failed to transfer insurable claim within 14 days from the date of registration, transferee had no insurable interest at the time of accident. He had no locus standi to file the claim."
22. In Revision Petition No.4126 of 2014 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Surendra Kumar Bhilawe decided on 23.02.2015 (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"8. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which deals with the stage when the property (title) in movable property passes to the buyer reads as under :-
"19. Property passes when intended to pass (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it be transferred.
// 21 // (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer."
It would thus be seen that the title in a movable property is transferred to the purchaser only at the time the parties to the transaction intend it to be so transferred. The intention of the parties would be gathered primarily from the terms of the contract coupled with the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of each case.
9. Section 20 of the Act, which deals with passing of property in the good which are in a deliverable state reads as under :-
"20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. - Whether there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable stage, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of the payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed.
Thus, the property i.e. ownership of vehicle in question passed from the previous owner to the complainant, on execution of the sale agreement dated 02.04.2004, since, there is nothing on record to indicate that the parties intended to postpone the passing of the property in vehicle in question to the complainant, till the time it was got registered in her name in the record of the RTO.
10. In our view, when the owner of a vehicle sells the said vehicle to another person, and executes a sale letter, without in any manner // 22 // postponing the passing of title/property in the vehicle, the ownership in the vehicle passes to the purchaser on execution of sale letter itself. The delivery of the vehicle only reinforces the title which the purchaser gets to the vehicle on execution of the sale letter in his favour. As far as transfer of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser in the record of the RTO is concerned, that is a requirement for the purpose of the Motor Vehicle Act but that does not postpone the transfer of the ownership in the vehicle to the purchaser till the time the vehicle is transferred in his name in the purchaser in the record of the concerned RTO."
23. Looking to the documents and the pleadings of the appellant (complainant) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2), we find that it is clearly established that the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Smt. Geeta Singh had transferred the vehicle in question to the appellant (complainant) and also handed over possession of the same to the appellant (complainant). The vehicle in question was registered in the name of the appellant (complainant) at the time when it met with an accident. The vehicle in question is a movable property and the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 applies in the case of sale of the vehicle and therefore, when the vehicle in question was delivered to new owner and the new owner took possession of the vehicle in question, then the sale of the movable property was complete. Thus, the vehicle in question was transferred by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) Smt. Geeta Singh herself to the appellant (complainant) Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, therefore, it was necessary for the appellant (complainant) to // 23 // have made a prayer to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) as per provisions of G.R.17 as well as under Sub Clause (2) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy. No such prayer has been made. Thus, the appellant (complainant) has not become insured of the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), therefore, the appellant (complainant) was not having insurable interest in the vehicle in question, hence, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) and it has not committed any deficiency in service.
24. We are of the view that the impugned order dated 26.03.2015, passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
25. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member /01/2016 /01/2016 /01/2016 /01/2016