State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baldev Singh vs National Insurance Co. on 3 August, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 671 of 2017 Date of Institution:01.06.2017 Date of Decision: 03.08.2017 Baldev Singh aged 79 years, son of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, resident of Kacha Killa, Sadhaura, Sub Tehsil Sadhaura, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. Appellant-Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Limited, Near Bus Stand, Naraingarh, District Ambala through its Branch Manager. Respondent-Opposite Party CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Ms. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
For the appellant: Sh. Lavish Arora, Advocate for the appellant O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated March 31st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short 'District Forum') whereby complaint was dismissed.
2. On May 25th, 2007 Baldev Singh-complainant purchased vehicle bearing registration No.HR45-9337 from one Dimple. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, 'Insurance Company') for the period May 23th, 2007 to May 22nd, 2008. The complainant got the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his favour. On October 27th, 2007, the vehicle met with an accident. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of accident, complainant had no insurable interest because he did not get the certificate of insurance transferred in his favour.
3. Indisputably, at the time of accident, the registration certificate of the vehicle was in the name of complainant but the insurance policy was in the name of previous owner Dimple. The complainant did not apply within fourteen days with the Insurance Company for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance as per Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: -
"Transfer of Certificate of Insurance: (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.
[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.] (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance."
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 221 held as under:-
"Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih's case because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. 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 whom 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. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct."
6. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Vs. Deenadayal & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC), Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held as under:-
"7. 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 Vehicles Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case........."
7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in Om Parkash Sharma Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2009 (1)CLT-29 (NC) which is as follows:-
"As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
8. On the aforesaid facts and principles enunciated, it is clear that the Insurance Company was not under obligation to indemnify the subsequent purchaser for the damage caused to the vehicle unless the subsequent purchaser got the insurance policy transferred in his name. In the instant case as the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.
9. In view of above, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. Hence, the appeal is also dismissed.
Announced 03.08.2017 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President U.K