National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. ... vs Naresh Laxminarayan Bhutada on 16 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2844 OF 2009 (From order dated 02.05.2009 in First Appeal No. 870/2008 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur) WITH IA/6521/2014 (FOR LRs) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Sanman Lawns, West High Court Road, Shankarnagar, Nagpur- 440 010 Through: The Dy. General Manager The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st Floor, Plot No. 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110 005 Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Naresh Laxminarayan Bhutada Gajanan Apartment Gajanannagar, Akot, Teh. Akot, Distt. Akola (Maharashtra) 2. Mr. Megandas Kewalram Keshwani R/o Navi Vasti, Badnera Amravati (Maharashtra) Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Wasi Haider, Advocate Pronounced on : 16th January, 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The main question involved in this case is, whether, Sh.Meghandas Keshwani, the second complainant has insurable interest in the vehicle when the accident took place.
2. Sh. Naresh Bhutada, complainant No.1 was the owner of Honda City Car in question. He had obtained insurance policy from Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., for a sum of ₹6,11,043/-. According to the complainant No.1, he had sold this vehicle in favour of complainant No.2, on 01.09.2007. Receipt of the sale has been filed with this complaint which is an ordinary receipt written on an ordinary page. Unfortunately, the said car met with an accident on 05.09.2007. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant No.2 had no insurable interest.
3. Both the fora below have relied upon the judgment of this Commission reported in the case of Narayansingh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., TAC 2008 (1) 237, wherein it was held that because of clause 10 of the Indian Motor Tariff, the insurance of the vehicle transfers along with vehicle irrespective of the transfer of ownership and passed the order in favour of the complainant.
4. Aggrieved by that order, this revision petition has been filed.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the accident took place within five days of the transfer of the vehicle, therefore, OP2 could not avail the 14 days time as mentioned in GR 17. He contended that moreover, this Commission has already passed an order in favour of the consumer.
6. The filing of the above said Receipt is an eye wash in order to pull the wool in the eyes of law. We have gone through the entire record. The investigator had recorded the statement of Naresh Lakshminarayan Bhutada, wherein, in para No. 2 of his statement, he disclosed the following facts :-
In May, 2007, I had sold my Honda City Car No. MH-90/M 333 to Kailash Maghandas Keswani of Badnera. This transaction was in Rs.6.30 lacs and at that time, we both had no written action.
I had given all original documents of the vehicle along with TTO forms (vehicle transfer papers) of RTO, duly signed.
7. Likewise, the statement of complainant No.2 was also recorded, wherein Sh. Kailash Maghandas Keswani, admitted/stated as under :-
In May 2007, I purchased second hand Honda City CXar No. MH-30/M-333. This car is registered at RTO, Akola, in the name of Shri Naresh Bhutada, r/o Akrot and this transaction was done through Dalal of Nagpur. This car, we purchased for Rs.6.30 lacs and at that time, we did not take any written action. Sh. Bhutada had given us only all the original documents of vehicle and had signed TTO Form (vehicle transfer papers). Till today, I have not got this vehicle transferred at RTO Akola.
8. The creation of the Receipt is an afterthought, which is nothing but a ruse to make sure that the complainants get the reimbursement from the OP. Complainants have not come to the Commission with clean hands. It, therefore, clearly means that the case of the complainants is fraught with misrepresentations. The claim of the complainants is fraudulent. It clearly stands proved that the vehicle was transferred in the month of May, 2007. Such like fraudulent receipts can be created at any time. We see no reason to discard the statements made by the above said witnesses before the Investigator. The complainants did not pick up a conflict with those statements, at any time.
9. Though the transfer was made in May, 2007, no application was made before the RTO for transfer of ownership.
Section 50 (1) (b) clearly lays down, as under :-
the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
It is apparent that the needful was not done.
10. The law has crystalline clarity. 14 days time allowed by the RTO will start when the registration is made in favour of the complainant No.2. Complainant No.2 has violated both the provisions of law. It must be informed that GR-10 was replaced with GR-17 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The cited authority by the complainants must be pertaining to the old law.
Consequently, we accept the revision petition and dismiss the complaint filed by both the complainants. No order as to costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/