National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. ... vs Kulvir Singh on 1 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1355 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 25/02/2015 in Appeal No. 1049/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Having its Registered Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada , Pune Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KULVIR SINGH S/o. Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o. H. No. 167, Village Sarangpur, U.T. Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Suman Bagga, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 01 Jun 2015 ORDER JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The car bearing registration no. CH-03-W-7553 was owned by a Company namely M/s. Parabolic Drugs Ltd., Chandigarh and the said Company had got it insured with the petitioner, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 13.10.2012 to 12.10.2013. The aforesaid vehicle was sold by M/s. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. to one Sh. Gurpreet Singh on 14.12.2012. He applied to the RLA, Chandigarh on 09.02.2013 for transfer of the vehicle in his name and the vehicle was actually transferred in his name on 17.02.2013. On 18.02.2013, the complainant, Sh. Kulvir Singh, purchased the aforesaid vehicle from Sh. Gurpreet Singh and applied to the RLA, Chandigarh for transfer of the said vehicle from the name of Sh. Gurpreet Singh to his name. The vehicle, however, met with an accident on 27.02.2013. A claim was duly lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Company, but it came to be rejected vide letters dated 15.04.2013, 22.04.2013 and 08.05.2013 on the ground that the petitioner Company did not have a contract of Insurance with the complainant.
2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same ground on which the claim was repudiated. It was also pointed out in the reply that Sh. Gurpreet Singh despite having purchased the vehicle on 14.12.2012, had not got the insurance transferred in his name at any point of time.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 18.09.2014 directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 3,83,247/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Insurance Company was also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.02.2015, the said Company is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to the extent it is relevant requires the transferee of a vehicle to apply to the insurer, within 14 days from the date of the transfer of the vehicle to him, 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 on such application being made, the insurer is required to make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.
5. It would thus be seen that the transferee of a vehicle has by statute been given a grace period of 14 days for applying to the insurer to transfer the registration of the vehicle in his name. In the present case, Sh. Kulvir Singh, having purchased the vehicle in question on 17.02.2013, he had time till 04.03.2013 to apply to the petitioner Company for transfer of the insurance policy and the certificate of insurance in his name. Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident during the aforesaid grace period of 14 days, which was statutorily available to the complainant in terms of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the Insurance Company in my view cannot deny the benefit of the insurance policy to the complainant, subject, of course, to its verifying the flow of title to the vehicle from M/s. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. to the complainant.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Company is that since Sh. Gurpreet Singh did not get the policy transferred in his name, the contract of the petitioner Company with him came to an end and consequently, the complainant could not have sought transfer of the insurance policy in his name. I, however, find no merit in the aforesaid contention. The only requirements of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are that a person should acquire a vehicle and he should apply to the Insurance Company for transfer of the certificate of insurance and the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle to him. If, there has been a default on the part of on intervening purchaser, in getting the insurance policy transferred in his name, that would not affect the statutory right available to the subsequent transferee of the vehicle, to get the insurance policy transferred in his name. Had the vehicle met with an accident, before it was sold by Sh. Gurpreet Singh to the complainant Sh. Kulvir Singh and after 14 days of its purchase by Sh. Gurpreet Singh from M/s. Parabolic Drugs Ltd., the Insurance Company would have been justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that Sh. Gurpreet Singh had not applied for the transfer of insurance policy from the name of M/s. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. to his name. Similarly, had the vehicle met with an accident more than 14 days after it was purchased by the complainant Sh. Kulvir Singh and Sh. Kulvir Singh had not applied for the transfer of the policy in his name by that time, the Insurance Company would have been justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that Sh. Kulvir Singh had not applied to it within the statutory period of 14 days for transfer of the insurance policy in his name. But, where the vehicle meets with an accident before expiry of 14 days from the date of purchase by the subsequent transferee, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate its liability.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent views taken by the State Commission and the District Forum.
The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER