National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Akbar S/O Nabeesa on 16 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3597 OF 2008 (From the order dated 30.05.2008 in First Appeal No. 35/2008 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram) 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Nehru Memorial Hall Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, M.G. Road, Kochi -11 . Petitioners/Opp. Parties (OP) Versus Akbar S/o Nabeesa Kolayil House, Mundoor P.O. Palakkad, Kerala Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO PRONOUNCED ON 16th January, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 35 of 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Akbar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased Motorcycle KL9 P2518 from M. Ali on 16.1.2006 and got registration certificate transferred in his name. He intimated to OP/petitioner with a request to change name in the insurance policy issued by OP for a period of one year from 18.6.2005 to 17.6.2006. Motor Cycle was stolen during the intervening night of 5-6/2/2006. FIR was lodged and claim was also lodged with the OP. As claim was not settled, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested and submitted that there was no privity of contact between the complainant and OP, as complainant was not insured and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to make payment for loss of the vehicle along with Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. None appeared for the respondent even after service.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was no privity of contact between the parties and insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, petitioner was not liable; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant purchased vehicle on 16.1.2006, which was insured by OP. During currency of insurance policy, vehicle was stolen on 5-6/2/2006. Admittedly, insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant, learned District Forum, though, mentioned judgment of Apex Court reported in 1996 ACJ 65 Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., but ignored that judgment on the basis of judgment of the National Commission as well as High Court of Kerala and allowed complaint on the assumption that benefits of policy automatically accrues to new owners on transfer of vehicle.
Learned State Commission also upheld the order of District Forum on the basis of circular issued by Traffic Advisory Committee.
7. Honble Apex Court in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that inspite of intimation of transfer of vehicle by the complainant to the insurance company; complainant is not entitled for indemnification of damages to the vehicle till policy is transferred in complainants name. No doubt, this Commission has held in Narain Singhs case reported in 2008 (1) CLT 46 (NC) that benefits under Policy automatically accrues to the new owner on transfer of vehicle, but it was based on the basis of India Motor Tariff Regulations applicable upto 30.6.2002. Now, new regulations have come in force from 1.7.2002 and in the light of new regulations complainant was not entitled to indemnification as held by this Commission in (2009) CPJ 158 (NC) Madan Singh Vs. United India Ins. Co.
Ltd. Complainant was entitled for reimbursement of damages only if the policy had already transferred in his name before theft took place. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 30.5.2008 passed by Learned State Commission in in Appeal No. 35 of 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Akbar and order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Learned District Forum in CC No. 109/2006 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k