National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Untied India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Sri V.C. Deendayal on 13 March, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 426 OF
2007
(Against the order
dated 30.10.2006
in Appeal/ Complaint No.55/2004
of
the State Commission,
A.P.)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MADANAPALLI THROUGH
DY. MANAGER, HRO, BASHEERBAGH,
HYDERABAD (A.P.)
........ Petitioner
Vs.
SRI
V.C. DEENADAYAL
15/16, RAMAGOPAL NAIDU STREET, MADANAPALLI,
CHITTOOR DIST.
SMT.
B. AMARAVATAMMA
R/O 15/116, RAMAGOPAL NAIDU
STREET, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTT.
........ Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner
: Mr. A.K.De, Advocate
For the
Respondent : Nemo
Pronounced on :_13.03.2009
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER The point for consideration in this revision petition which has been filed by the opposite party United India Insurance Co.Ltd. against order dated 13.10.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad vide which the State Commission dismissed their appeal against the order of the District Forum directing them to pay to the respondent/complainant No.2 a sum of Rs.2,00,700/- after deducting 10% depreciation on Rs.2,23,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs.2000/- pertains to whether the purchaser of a vehicle who does not get the registration certificate transferred in his name from that of the original owner and who also does not get the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his favour keeps paying the insurance premium on behalf of the registered owner will be entitled to any relief in case of an accident to the vehicle under the insurance policy ?
Facts from which this question arises are as follows ---
Shri V.G. Deenadayal, respondent/complainant No.1 was the registered owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle. Through an agreement of sale, the vehicle was purchased by respondent/complainant No.2 Smt. B.Amaravathamma on 23.11.1999.
Neither the registration nor the insurance of the vehicle, however, was got transferred by the purchaser respondent/complainant No.2 but she continued to pay the insurance premium on behalf of the registered owner i.e. respondent/complainant No.1 to keep the policy alive. The vehicle met with an accident on 17.2.2001 during the currency of the policy and the respondent/complainant No.2 informed the petitioner insurance company about the same who deputed a surveyor to assess the damage who assessed the same at Rs.1,60,000/-. Since the insurance continued to stand in the name of respondent/ complainant No.1, he submitted a claim form which was kept pending for months. Finally, it was repudiated on 24.1.2002 on the ground of violation of the conditions of the policy. Aggrieved there upon, both the respondent/complainant No.1, the registered owner of the vehicle and respondent/complainant No.2, the purchaser filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint in the terms stated above. Appeal filed by the opposite party - insurance company before the State Commission was dismissed vide the order which is now under challenge.
No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents/ complainants despite substituted service by publication in the local language Eenadu newspaper.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that both the fora below have miserably failed to appreciate that respondent/complainant No.1 in whose name, the insurance policy was obtained had lost right over the vehicle and had no insurable interest in the vehicle. As per his own admission, the vehicle was sold by him during the year 1999, whereas accident occurred in the early hours of 17.2.2001 more than a year after the sale of the vehicle.
Similarly, respondent/complainant No.2 was not entitled to the payment as she was not the insured and there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent/complainant No.2.
Learned counsel further contends that there has been no explanation from either the respondent/ complainant No.1 or respondent/complainant No.2 regarding non-transfer of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser. According to him, this course was being adopted for availing the no claim bonus.
In the absence of neither of the complainants having any insurable interest, it was totally illegal on part of the fora below to have ordered the petitioner to make good the loss under the policy. In support of his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 1996 (1) SCC 221.
We have perused the records of the case and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We find that the complaint has been filed jointly by respondent/complainant No.1 Shri V.G.Deenadayal, the registered owner of the vehicle and Smt. B. Amaravatamma the purchaser of the vehicle. It is clear from the complaint as well as from the orders passed by the fora below that even after its sale/purchase, the registration of the vehicle continued in the name of respondent/ complainant No.1, even though for all practical purposes, respondent/complainant No.2 was running/operating the vehicle as the defacto owner. In complaint it is stated that respondent/ complainant No.2 is the real owner of the vehicle.
Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the insurance company within 14 days of its purchase under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case. After purchase of vehicle, the insurance policy has been renewed twice i.e. from 3.2.2000 to 2.2.2001 and from 3.2.2001 to 2.2.2002. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the complainants dishonestly combined the insurance in the name of complainant No.1 and dishonestly claimed no claim bonus.
The real owner complainant had neither registration in her name nor insurance. She has no insurable interest nor privity of contract with petitioner. The original owner cannot maintain any claim against insurance. We are supported in our view by judgment of this Commission in Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 1 (2009) CPJ 158 (NC) to which one of us (Justice R.K.Batta) was a party. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent/ complainant No.2 who purchased the vehicle has stepped into the shoes of the respondent/complainant No.1 and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the insurance is totally erroneous and, therefore, not sustainable.
In order to avail the benefit under the policy, there has to be a contract between the parties and defacto possession of the vehicle will not confer any legal right on respondent/complainant No.2 to avail the benefit under the policy. The findings of both the fora below are therefore totally/legally unsustainable. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint and allow the revision petition with no order as to costs.
Sd/ (R.K. BATTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/ (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/14