State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Smt. Vina Wd/O. Manoj Jadhav, on 18 November, 2013
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/11/21
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 18/10/2010 in Case No. CC/10/110 of District Yavatmal)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
YAVATMAL BRANCH : THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER, HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT "S.K.TOWERS", NELSON
SQUARE, CHHINDWADA ROAD, NAGPUR. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
SMT. VINA WD/O. MANOJ JADHAV,
R/O. VARZADI, TAH & DISTT. YAVATMAL.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Mr. A.R. Godbole
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. A.D.
Tote
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 18/11/2013 ) PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18/10/2010 passed in CC No. 110/2010 by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the Motor Cycle bearing No. MH-29/G-6101 was owned by her husband Manoj Jadhav. It was insured with the original opposite party (for short O.P.) for the period from 02/06/2009 to 01/06/2010. The premium of Rs.50/- was paid to cover personal accident benefit and thereby the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-. The deceased Manoj Jadhav while driving that motor cycle met with an accident on 22/08/2009 and died. The complainant who is his widow, therefore submitted claim proposal to O.P. supported by documents. However, the O.P. repudiated her claim vide letter dated 25/02/2010 on the ground that the insurance policy of that vehicle was standing in the name of Mr. Deepak Raut on the date of accident. Therefore, she claimed from O.P. Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.,Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
3. The O.P. opposed the claim by filing written version. It admitted that the aforesaid Motor Cycle was insured with it. It raised a plea that policy was issued in the name of Mr. Deepak Raut covering personal accident benefit and that it repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy was standing in the name of said Mr. Deepak Raut. It denied that it is liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
4. The District Consumer Forum below after going through the documents partly allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- towards the sum assured with interest as specified in the impugned order and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.1500/- towards cost of the complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the O.P. has preferred this appeal. The Advocate of both parties filed their respective written notes of argument and which are considered as their oral argument as per request made by them. We have also perused the papers placed before us.
6. It is not disputed that the Motor Cycle owned by Manoj Jadhav, who was husband of the complainant, was insured with the O.P./appellant and that the insurance policy was issued in the name of previous owner Mr. Deepak Raut of that motor cycle and on the date of accident the policy was not transferred in the name of the Manoj Jadhav, the husband of the complainant. The learned Advocate of the appellant submitted that in the following cases it is specifically laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court that, if policy is not transferred in the name of subsequent owner, no benefit can be accrued to the subsequent owner in respect of own damage of vehicle.
i.
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., IV (2008) CPJ 65 (NC).
ii.
Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 65.
7. Thus, it is submitted by learned Advocate of the appellant that ratio of said decisions is applicable to present case and that the District Consumer Forum below has not considered properly the said legal aspect and committed error in partly allowing the complaint and hence, impugned order may be set aside. On the other hand the learned Advocate of the original complainant/ respondent herein supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases very specifically held that when the policy is not transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the subsequent purchaser and that as per provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act on transfer of vehicle, its policy is transferred automatically in the name of subsequent purchaser and it is applicable only in the case of 3rd party risk.
9. In the instant case admittedly the policy was not standing in the name of deceased husband of the complainant at the time of accident. It is not a case of third party risk. Therefore, risk of the life of deceased husband of the complainant who was owner of that vehicle, on the date of accident, was not covered under that policy.
10. The Forum below has not properly considered the said legal aspect. In our view when the policy was not transferred in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant, no compensation can be granted to the complainant on the basis of the said insurance policy of the Motor Cycle. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and it deserves to be set aside.
ORDER
i. The
appeal is allowed.
ii.
The impugned order dated 18/10/2010 passed in CC/10/110 is hereby set aside.
iii. The
complaint is dismissed.
iv.
No order as to cost in this
appeal.
v.
Copy of order be furnished to both the parties.
Dated:-
18/11/2013 [HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER ay