National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V.A. Sreekumar vs Senior Divisional Manager, New India ... on 30 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3732 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 10/08/2017 in Appeal No. 184/2014 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. V.A. SREEKUMAR S/O APPUKUTAAM PILLAI, RESIDING AT ZVI/531, HARITHA, R C ROAD, KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-5 KERALA-682005 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. RAVIPURAM, M G ROAD, KOCHI15 KERALA-682015 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, RAVIPURAM BRANCH, VALLA,ATTOM ESTATE, M.G ROAD, KOCHI-15 KERALA-682015 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G ROAD, LOCHI-11 KERALA-682011 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Radha, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 30 Jan 2018 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The petitioner/complainant namely Mr. V.A. Sreekumar owned a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7BA-835 which he had got insured with the respondent New India Insurance Company Ltd. On 07.04.2006, he entered into a transaction with one Mr. John Mathew. The said transaction was reduced in the form of a sale agreement, an English translation of which, as filed by the petitioner/complainant reads as under:
"The vehicle KL7 BA 835, 2005 model Leyland double axle lorry which is in the absolute ownership and possession of the first party is sold to the second party, out of which from the sale price an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) is received by the first party and the vehicle without platform is given possession today.
As the vehicle is under Hypothecation to Palarivattom Kotak Mahindra Bank and the first party has remitted three installments, the second party shall pay the balance hypothecation liability, hereafter with future interest and settle the liability.
In the event of the finance company agreeing for transfer of ownership, the first party agree to complete all the procedures for the registration in favour of the second party.
The first party shall be liable for all liability and proceedings before the department till today and in the event of any liability/proceedings before the department hereafter, the second party shall be liable."
It would thus be seen that the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner/complainant to Mr. John Mathew on 07.04.2006 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- which he had duly received from the buyer. It is also evident from the document that the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the purchaser Mr. John Mathew who undertook to pay the balance installments payable to the financer.
2. The vehicle having been stolen on 09.09.2006, more than five months after the aforesaid transaction, a claim was lodged by the petitioner/complainant with the insurer for reimbursement of the insurance policies which he had taken from the respondent. The claim having been rejected, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint having been dismissed, he approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.08.2017, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the sale transaction was not complete as the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant/petitioner in the record of the concerned licensing authority on the date it was stolen.
4. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act to the extent it is relevant provides that 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 to be transferred. 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. Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in section 20 to 24 are the 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. Section 20 of the Act provides that where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed.
Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, requires transferee of the vehicle to apply within 14 days from the date of the transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described therein, in his favour.
5. Dealing with this issue, this Commission in Revision Petition No.1347 of 2008, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bimlesh decided on 03-09-2014 inter alia held as under:
"13. 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 postponing the passing of title/property in the vehicle, the ownership in the vehicle passes to the purchaser on execution of the 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."
Section 50 of The Motor Vehicles Act casts an obligation upon the transferor and the transferee to report the factum of transfer to the Registering Authority. But this obligation arises only after the transfer of the vehicle has already taken place. The aforesaid provision does not envisage any kind of reporting to or permission of the registering authority even before the ownership of the vehicle is transferred from one person to other. Thus, the above referred provision in my view, only reinforces the view that the ownership of a vehicle is transferred on the sale and delivery of the vehicle and the requirement of informing the transfer to the registering authority is only a post transfer statutory requirement.
Once it is proved that the ownership of the vehicle had transferred from the insured to another person before the theft or accident of the vehicle, as the case may be, the transferee of the vehicle, having no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the theft / accident, will not be entitled to any reimbursement from the insurer. He having already sold the ownership of the vehicle, if the insurer is made to pay to him, it will not be a reimbursement but will become a bounty for the person who has already sold the vehicle. The insurance policy entitles the insured only to reimbursement for the loss suffered by him. If no loss has been suffered by him, there can be no question of any reimbursement from the insurer.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the petitioner/complainant did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle on the day it was stolen. The order passed by the fora below therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition as well as the accompanying application for condonation of delay in filing the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER