State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dinesh on 8 May, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.05.2017 First Appeal No.135/2010 (Arising out of the order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1323/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Having its Regional Office at Level IV, Tower -II, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001 ....Appellant Versus Shri Dinesh S/o Shri Ram Avtar, RZ-708, Gali No.16, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. ....Respondent CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Salma Noor, Member
1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, 'the Act') wherein challenge is made to order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (New Delhi), New Delhi (in short, the District Forum) in CC No. 1323/2008 whereby the aforesaid complaint case has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been directed as under:
"i. OP will pay Rs.2,12,000/- to the complainant which is the insurance amount subject to the condition that complainant will give indemnity bond to the OP and fill all the necessary terms and will get the vehicle transfer in the name of OP with the transport department and will have no claim on this vehicle if the same is trace out later on.
ii. On account of mental agony and harassment, OP will pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
iii. OP will pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation."
Briefly stated the relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum stating that therein that he had purchased a car Esteem MPI, bearing No. Dl-2CV2079, Model 2002 from one Shri Roshan Lal Garg after paying consideration including the price of the insurance premium. The car was purchased in the month of June 2008. The car was already insured with the appellant/OP and policy was valid from 03.03.2008 to 02.03.2009. It was alleged that after getting the price of the car and premium, the aforesaid Roshan Lal transferred all his rights in the vehicle in the name of the respondent/complainant and the vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant informed the appellant/OP about transfer of ownership vide letter dated 16.06.2008. It was alleged that the said vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 11-12 August 2008 when it was parked in front of respondent's/complainant's house and an FIR bearing No.497/2008 was registered at PS Dabri, South West District, Delhi. The respondent/complaint informed the appellant/OP about the theft of the vehicle. The respondent/complainant also lodged claim with the appellant/OP and submitted all the requisite papers. However, no amount was given. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for directions to the appellant/OP to pay the insured value of the car i.e. Rs.2,14,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. interest from the date of theft till payment and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation costs.
Appellant/OP contested the complaint by filing written statement stating that the policy was issued in the name of previous owner Shri Roshan Lal Garg for the period 03.03.2008 to 02.03.2009. The respondent/complainant never informed about transfer of the vehicle as such he had no insurable interest in the vehicle and accordingly, the appellant/OP was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/complainant.
Respondent/complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
Both the parties filed evidence in the form of affidavit. After hearing the counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum did not agree with the contention of the appellant/OP that respondent/complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. Ld. District Forum held that as the ownership of the vehicle was transferred, the insurance policy stood automatically transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant as such District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay the insurance amount to the respondent/complainant alongwith compensation and costs of litigation as has been stated above.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that the respondent/complainant had purchased the vehicle from previous owner, namely, Roshan Lal Garg. The registration certificate of the car was transferred in name of respondent/complainant but the policy relating to the vehicle was not transferred. It is contended that there is no privity of contract between the respondent/complainant and the appellant/OP as such the appellant/OP is not liable to pay the claim. It is contended that Ld. District Forum has decided the case on the basis of GR-10 of Indian Motor Tariff Regulation which was not applicable in the present case. It is contended that the present case is governed by GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff which came in force w.e.f. 01.07.2002. It is submitted that as per GR 17, the respondent/complainant was required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing to the insurer who had insured the vehicle with necessary details of the registration of vehicle, date of transfer of vehicle, name of previous owner of vehicle, and date and No. of policy so that insurer may make necessary change in the record and issue fresh certificate of insurance to the respondent/complainant. It is contended that the respondent/complainant did not apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership to appellant/OP for getting insurance certificate and policy transferred in his name and as such is not entitled for any amount.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and no interference is required.
We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material on record as well as record received from the District Forum.
It is not disputed that the respondent/complainant purchased the vehicle from previous owner Roshan Lal Garg. It is also not disputed that registration certificate in respect of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the respondent. It is also not disputed that the car was stolen on the intervening night of 11-12 August 2008. It is also admitted position that the respondent/complainant did not apply for transfer of insurance policy in his name after transfer of RC.
Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, provides that transferee should apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance policy and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. GR -17 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act, which is applicable from 30.06.2002 regarding transfer of insurance policy reads as under:
"GR.17. Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
In case of Package Policies, transfer of the "Own Damage" section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee's entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.
A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.
Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued."
In the present case the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of respondent/complainant nor it is case of respondent/complainant that he had applied for transfer of the policy within 14 days from the date of transfer. No proof is also filed that the intimation vide letter dated 16.06.2008 was acknowledged by appellant/OP. In these circumstances, even if the RC was in the name of the respondent/complainant, it cannot be said that respondent/complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle. The insurance policy was never transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant. The appellant/OP was not liable to make good the loss of the vehicle.
In the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Akbar I(2014) CPJ 395 (NC), the National Commission has held that the complainant would be entitled for reimbursement of damages only if policy had already been transferred in his name before theft took place.
Similar view has also been taken by the National Commission in the judgment of Mohammad Ishakbhai Timberwala v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. II(2016) CPJ 592 (NC).
In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the District Forum in CC No.1323/2008 is set aside and consequently the complaint No.1323/2008 stands dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri