State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional ... vs Dinesh Kumar Son Of Shri Sahab Ram, ... on 7 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1079 of 2007 Date of Institution: 30.04.2007 Date of Decision: 07.03.2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, S.C.O. Nos. 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory Shri S.L. Phulley, Manager. Appellant (OP) Versus Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Sahab Ram, Resident of Village Ghoranwali Tehsil Rama, District Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant though the case is fixed for arguments. It is already 12.55 P.M. This appeal relates to the year 2007. Heavy pendency of appeals/complaints as well as non-cooperative attitude of the parties/their counsel is the reason for heavy cause list. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and going through the case file.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa whereby complaint bearing No.154/2005 filed by complainant (respondent herein) seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the insurable benefits in respect of motorcycle bearing No.HR-44/B-1891 make Splender Hero Honda, was accepted by granting following relief:-
..we direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.12795/- the loss assessed by the Surveyor of the respondent-company to the complainant.
We find that the Op without any reasonable cause or excuse withheld the amount of compensation and actual loss due to this reason the complainant has suffered financial loss, harassment, humiliation pain and agony etc. Hence, we direct the Op to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation on these counts with costs of proceedings to the tune of Rs.1500/-. We further direct the OP to implement the present order within a period of one month failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We order accordingly.
The brief facts of the present case are that motorcycle bearing No.HR-44/B-1891 make Splender Hero Honda was purchased by complainant (respondent) from one Mahesh Kumar son of Ram Niwas Resident of Ward No.15, Ellenabad District Sirsa, which was insured with the appellant-opposite party for the period w.e.f.
18.6.2004 to 17.6.2005. Complainant applied for transfer of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in his name to Registering Authority, Ellenabad on 18.10.2004 and the motorcycle was transferred in his name on 03.12.2004. However, in the mean time, the vehicle damaged in an accident on 15.11.2004. Claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was no valid contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Forum. Complainants claim was resisted by opposite party on the above stated ground. District Consumer Forum accepted complaint with the following observation:-
Failure of person to get vehicle registered in his name on purchase from original owner have no relevancy with the insurable interest. The complainant purchase the vehicle with insurance, the policy in question is valid and legal on the date of accident. The Honble State Commission New Delhi held in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Gupta 2006(2) CLT 69 ( Delhi) that once vehicle is sold by first owner against consideration insurance company is bound to indemnify the subsequent purchaser as to the loss or damage to vehicle because he has insurable interest Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant prior to 18.10.2004 on which date he applied to the Registration Authority, Ellenabad for transferring the vehicle in his name and the vehicle was transferred in his name on 03.12.2004 and the vehicle damaged in an accident on 15.11.2004. Till that time the complainant had not informed the Insurance Company about t the purchase of the vehicle. Thus, on the date of accident the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle because neither the vehicle was in his name nor the Insurance Cover was transferred in his name.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is attractive in view of provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, according to which the complainant was under an obligation to get the necessary entry incorporated in the Insurance Cover Note within 14 days from the date of purchase but the complainant failed to do so. Thus, there was violation of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and for that reasons the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefits to the complainant. Inference can be drawn from the judgment rendered by Honble National Commission in case cited as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus V.C. DEENADAYAL & ANR. III(2009) CPJ 260 (NC), wherein the Honble National Commission has held as under:-
7. Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the Insurance Company within 14 days of its purchase under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case Further reference is made to case law cited as Dharmendra Nath Thakur Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010(1) CPC 574 (N.C.) wherein the Honble National Commission has held as under:-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Non transfer of policy Registration of vehicle was changed in the name of complainant No.1 but insurance policy remained in the name of previous owner-It is settled law as cited in Complete Insulations case 1996(1) SCC 221 by the Honble Supreme Court that insured will not be entitled to compensation from insurer for damages to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract covering risk for damage to the vehicle-Orders of Fora below dismissing the claim of petitioner warrants no interference-Relief declined.
The instant case is fully covered by the judgments cited above. Thus, complainants claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant-opposite party. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts in view of the latest judgments mentioned above and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.8398/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 07.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member