National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mushtaq Khan & Anr. on 21 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3618 OF 2013 (From the order dated 03.07.2013 in Appeal No. 2170 of 2011 of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office III Near Batiyari Chauraha Faizabad Road, Lucknow. Through: Chief Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office: 86-88, Janpath New Delhi 110 001 Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus 1. Mushtaq Khan S/o Sri Salim Khan R/o Gram, Goravarik, Pargana Miranpur Tehsil Sadar, City & District Sultanpur (U.P.) 2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Chintels House, 3rd Floor, Station Road, Lucknow, Through its Manager Respondents/Complainants BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Kishore Rawat & Mr.Mayank Sharma, Advocates For the Res. No. 1 : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Res. No. 2 : Mr. R. Narayanan, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 21st November, 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 03.07.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2170 of 2011 Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mushtaq Khan & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that vehicle registered in the name of Smt. Malti Devi was sold by OP No.1/Respondent No. 2 which was insured with OP No. 2/petitioner for a period of one year for a sum of Rs.3,64,500/-.
On account of non-payment of instalments by the owner, vehicle was possessed by OP No. 1 and sold to the complainant, but vehicle was not transferred in the name of complainant due to carelessness of OP No. 1. On 4.1.2008, vehicle was damaged in accident. Intimation was given to OP No. 2, who appointed surveyor.
Estimate of repair was about Rs.6,62,869/- and in such circumstances, vehicle fell under the category of total loss. Complainant lodged complaint before OP, but payment was not made. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that transfer of vehicle after sale was responsibility of purchaser and after sale of vehicle; OP had no concern with the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear before District forum and they were proceeded exparte. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 2 & 3 to pay Rs.3,64,500/- with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. As there is delay of only 3 days in filing revision petition, delay is condoned.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as neither vehicle nor policy was transferred in the name of complainant, petitioner rightly repudiated claim, but leaned 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. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by leaned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
6. It is admitted case of the parties that after purchase of old vehicle by the complainant, on 7.11.2007 vehicle continued in the name of seller and neither registration certificate nor insurance policy was transferred in the name of complainant till accident on 4.1.2008.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle as well as insurance policy not transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident, petitioner was not liable to make any payment towards claim. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on judgement delivered by me reported in I (2014) CPJ 493 (NC) Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in which it was held that if transferee fails to inform Insurance Co. about transfer of registration certificate in his name and policy is not transferred in his name, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay claim in case of own damage of vehicle. Same view has been taken by me in I (2014) CPJ 128 (NC) - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Thakur. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on which State Commission has also placed reliance in which it was observed that benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle. In the aforesaid case, accident occurred on 2.8.1995, but after 30.6.2002, as per GR 17, subsequent purchaser was under an obligation to get the vehicle and insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of registration certificate in his name for claiming damages to the vehicle. In the case in hand, neither registration certificate was transferred in the name of complainant, nor insurance policy stood transferred in the name of complainant at the time of accident and in such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments complainant was not entitled to any claim regarding damages to the vehicle and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and 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 order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2170 of 2011 Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mushtaq Khan & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 18.4.2011 passed in Complaint No. 227/09 Mushtaq Khan Vs. Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Ors. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k