National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dharmendra Nath Thakur & Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 29 January, 2010
OP 10/1998
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 221
OF 2006
[Against
the order dated 21.12.2005 in Appeal No. 348 of 2004 of the Chhattisgarh
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission]
1. Dharmendra
Nath Thakur
2. Jyotindra
Nath Thakur, Both sons of Shri
Jivendra Nath Thakur, R/o Turi Hatri,
Purani Basti, Raipur,
Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through
Divisional Manager, Division Office, Krishna Complex (L&HPF Deptt.), Tehsil & District
Raipur (C.G.)
Petitioners/Complainants
Respondent/Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the petitioners/complainants
Mr. R.K.
Bhawnani with Mohd. Anis & Mr. U.R. Rehman, Advocates
For the respondent
Mr. A.K. De
with Mr. Udit Kumar, Advocates
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Pronounced on : 29th January, 2010
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Petitioners/complainants, in their attempt to make out a case of deficiency in service against the United India Insurance Company Limited (the respondent/opposite party) for the reimbursement of loss suffered on account of damage to their vehicle, which met with an accident, have failed to convince the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, C.G. (District Forum for short) as well as the Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short), who have vide their orders dated 06.07.2004 and 21.12.2005 respectively dismissed their complaint. Dissatisfied, they have filed this revision petition.
Facts are not in dispute that a Maruti car, which was registered in the name of Jyotindra Nath Thakur (petitioner/complainant no.2) and had an insurance in his name, was transferred in favour of his brother Dharmendra Nath Thakur (petitioner/complainant no.1) on 12th of September, 2002.
Registration of the vehicle too was changed in favour of said Dharmendra Nath Thakur (respondent/complainant no.1).
However, the insurance of the vehicle continued in the name of the previous owner i.e. Jyotindra Nath Thakur (petitioner/ complainant no.2) even during the year 2003-2004. It was during the currency of this period of insurance that the vehicle met with an accident on 10th of April, 2003, about which intimation to the police authorities had been given and a claim of Rs.60,000/- was filed before the respondent/Insurance Company by the previous owner Jyotindra Nath Thakur which was repudiated by the respondent/Insurance Company holding that, on the date of the accident, the claimant, having disposed of the vehicle, was not the owner and had no insurable interest.
Appeal which was filed before the State Commission by the petitioners/complainants also met with the same fate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants has contended that the State Commission has failed to consider that intimation with regard to transfer of the vehicle in favour of Dharmendra Nath Thakur (petitioner/complainant no.1) had been duly given to the representative of the respondent/Insurance Company along with RC, which stood in his favour and, therefore, mentioning the name of Jyotindra Nath Thakur (petitioner/complainant no.2) in the insurance policy was a mistake committed by the respondent/Insurance Company. In any case, the policy documents, the proposal form, the claim form and the RC book proved beyond doubt that both the petitioners/complainants were brothers and there was no reason for them to suppress any fact. This aspect should have been taken into consideration by the State Commission, which it has failed to do. Besides surveyor appointed by the respondent/Insurance Company has assessed the loss and has given his recommendation for payment of the loss which should not have been ignored.
In the next limb of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants has referred to General Regulation No. 10 of the India Motor Tariff, which reads as under :
10.
Transfers On transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of Transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner. If the Transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the bonus or subjected to malus already shown on the policy, the recovery of the differences between his entitlement (if any) and that shown on the policy shall be waived till the expiry of the policy. However, on expiry and/or termination of the existing policy the transferee will be eligible for Bonus or subjected to malus as per his own entitlement. If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name it may be done on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. If a new certificate of the insurance in the insurance must name is required his old certificate of insurance must be surrendered and a fee of Rs.15/- must be collected.
If the old certificate of insurance is not surrendered a proper declaration must be taken from the transferee before a New Certificate of Insurance is issued.
and contended that this being their own guideline, the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer should have been automatically allowed to the transferee.
On the face of such a provision it was not permissible for the respondent Insurance Company to repudiate the claim on mere technicality of the insurance not having been transferred on paper in favour of the transferee. He has, therefore, contended that both the fora below, not having considered this important and relevant provision of the India Motor Tariff Regulation have committed an illegality, which needs to be set right in the revision.
Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party relying upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)] has justified the orders passed by the fora below and has contended that this being a case of concurrent finding, there is no scope for any interference at the stage of revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records of the case, we do not find any merit in this revision petition for the simple reason that, both the grounds on which the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants has tried to establish his case hold no water. His first contention that both the petitioners/complainants being brothers, who transferred the vehicle among themselves and have produced the relevant records of RC etc. before the respondent Insurance Company and, therefore, the onus to record the transfer was on the Insurance Company cannot be sustained, as it was Dharmendra Nath Thakur (petitioner/complainant no.1), who applied for the transfer of the RC in his favour and got the RC entered in his name but he did not take similar steps to get the insurance cover transferred in his favour which continued for years in the name of his brother, the previous owner.
On the point of automatic transfer of insurance as per General Regulation 10 of the India Motor Tariff, the same has to be rejected as this provision of the India Motor Tariff was in existence only upto 30th of June, 2002 and has been superseded by a new Motor Tariff Regulation. General Regulation No. 17 which is the new provision for transfers does not provide for any automatic transfer and mandates that the transferee will have to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing.
On both these counts, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants have no merit.
Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants, in similar circumstances and on identical facts this Commission in the case of Madan Singh (supra) has held that if a vehicle is purchased and transferred while the insurance continues in the name of previous owner, the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify any loss/damage.
The Honble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 221] has also ruled that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle.
Under the circumstances, there being no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/