National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Surendra Kumar Bhilawe on 23 February, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 22/07/2014 in Appeal No. 85/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 301 R.G CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR LSC BLOCK,'B' LAWRENCE ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110035 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE S/O LATE SH.RAMCHANDRA BHILAWE, R/O GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR TRIMURTY MANDIR, LAKHE NAGAR, POST, TEHSIL & DISTRICT : RAIPUR C.G ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate For the Respondent : Mohd. Anis ur Rehman, Advocate Dated : 23 Feb 2015 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant was the owner of a truck bearing No.CG04-JA-3835 which he had got insured with the petitioner company. On 13-11-2011 the aforesaid vehicle is alleged to have met with an accident. The FIR with the concerned police station was lodged on 16-11-2011 and intimation to the insurance company was given on 25-11-2011. The claim preferred by the complainant with the petitioner company, however, was rejected on the ground that having sold the vehicle he had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date it met with the accident. The vehicle had allegedly been sold to one Mohd. Iliyas Ansari.
2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on three grounds. The first ground taken by the insurance company was that since the respondent had already sold the vehicle much before it met with an accident, he was left with no insurable interest with it on the date the vehicle met with an accident. The second ground taken by the insurance company was that there was delay in intimating the accident to the police and the third ground was that the intimation given to the insurance company was much later and not immediately after the accident had taken place.
4. Vide order dated 09-01-2014 the District Forum directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.4,93,500/- to the complainant along with compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/-
5. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 22-07-2014 the petitioner company is before us by way of this revision petition.
6. A perusal of the sale agreement dated 11-04-2008 executed by the complainant with Shri Mohd. Iliyas Ansari would show that the complainant handed over the possession of the aforesaid vehicle to Shri Ansari on payment of Rs.1,40,000/-. Since the vehicle had been got financed from ICICI Bank the remaining payment was to be made by the purchaser directly to the said bank. The aforesaid document also shows that a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was received by the complainant from Shri Ansari on 11-04-2008. Thus, it stands duly proved that not only had the complainant received the sale consideration agreed with Shri Ansari he had also delivered the possession of the vehicle to him on 11-04-2008.
7. Though the vehicle was not got registered in the name of Shri Ansari by the time it met with an accident, that in our opinion, would be of no consequence in view of the sale having been already completed on 11-04-2008.
8. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which deals with the stage when the property (title) in movable property passes to the buyer, reads as under:
"19. Property passes when intended to pass (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.
(2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
(3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in sections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer."
It would thus be seen that the title in a movable property is transferred to the purchaser only at the time the parties to the transaction intend it to be so transferred. The intention of the parties would be gathered primarily from the terms of the contract coupled with the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of each case.
9. Section 20 of the Act, which deals with passing of property in the good which are in a deliverable state reads as under:
"20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. - Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed."
Thus, the property i.e. ownership of vehicle in question passed from the previous owner to the complainant, on execution of the sale agreement dated 02-04-2004, since, there is nothing on record to indicate that the parties intended to postpone the passing of the property in vehicle in question to the complainant, till the time it was got registered in her name in the record of the RTO.
10. In our view, when the owner of a vehicle sells the said vehicle to another person, and executes a sale letter, without in any manner postponing the passing of title/property in the vehicle, the ownership in the vehicle passes to the purchaser on execution of the sale letter itself. The delivery of the vehicle only reinforces the title which the purchaser gets to the vehicle on execution of the sale letter in his favour. As far as transfer of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser in the record of the RTO is concerned, that is a requirement for the purpose of the Motor Vehicle Act but that does not postpone the transfer of the ownership in the vehicle to the purchaser till the time the vehicle is transferred in his name in the purchaser in the record of the concerned RTO.
11. It is an admitted position that the FIR with the police was lodged on 16-11-2008. As per the terms & conditions of the policy the said FIR was required to be lodged immediately after the accident. No explanation has been given by the complainant for the aforesaid delay in lodging the FIR. The intimation to the insurance company was also required to be given soon after the accident. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why the said intimation was given after 12 days of the accident i.e. on 25-11-2011. On account of the aforesaid delay firstly in lodging the FIR with the police and then in giving intimation to the insurance company, not only was the police deprived of an opportunity to carry out investigation immediately after the accident when the evidence as to the manner in which the vehicle allegedly met with an accident would have been still available, the insurance company was also deprived to an opportunity to carry out an independent investigation into the manner in which the aforesaid accident had happened, soon after the said accident had been caused. It can hardly be disputed that the evidence which would be available soon after the accident is likely to be lost if there is a delay in reporting the matter to the police and giving intimation of the accident to the insurance company. That apart, failure to lodge report with the police and giving intimation to the insurance company immediately after the accident also amounts to a breach of the terms & conditions of the policy and consequently in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the said delay the insurance company is relieved of its obligation to reimburse the insured. This is yet another ground for which the complainant must necessarily fail.
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER