State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Assu.Co. vs Smt.Sharbari Bi on 16 December, 2022
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 752/2015
United India Assurance Company Ltd.
Regional Office,
Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills,
Bhopal ... Appellant
VERSUS.
Smt. Sharbari Bee
W/o Late Shri Mukhtar Ali,
Aged Adult, R/o Narsinghpur Ward,
Balaji Nagar Colony,
Karelli, Post Karelli,
Thana Karelli,
District Narsinghpur ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
MS. PREETIMA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI MOHAMMAD ALAUDDIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
ORDER
( 16 .12.2022 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
This appeal by the appellant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company'), is directed against the order dated 19.6.2015, passed by the District : 2 : Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short 'District Commission'), in complaint case No. 23/2013, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed by the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent').
2. The case of the respondent is that she had purchased a vehicle 'Mahindra Bollero SLX', bearing registration No. MP- 19 CA 2408 on 20.5.2011 from one Jai Prakash Sharma. It is submitted that the respondent had got the vehicle registered and the insurance policy transferred in her name On 27.5.2011, the subject vehicle met with an accident and the Insurance Company was intimated. The respondent, after getting assurance from the Insurance Company had got the subject vehicle repaired and the respondent was handed over a bill of Rs.3,63,245/-, regarding the same. It is alleged that when she presented the bills before the Insurance Company, she was denied payment. The respondent alleged deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company and hence approached the District Commission, seeking relief.
3. The Insurance Company denied the submissions made in the complaint and stated that the registered owner of the subject vehicle was Jai Prakash Sharma and the Insurance policy for the effective period was issued in his name only. The subject vehicle was transferred in respondent's name on 3.6.2011 and the insurance policy could be subsequently transferred in her name on 6.6.2012. It is submitted that the respondent was neither the owner of vehicle nor the insurance : 3 : policy was in her name, when the alleged accident took place. Therefore, the claim is not payable.
4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,63,245/-, (the expenses incurred by the respondent for repairs of the subject vehicle) within a period of one month. In addition, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company argued that the District Commission has erroneously allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and has ignored an important aspect that the vehicle was sold to the respondent but the respondent was not the registered owner of the subject vehicle when the accident took place. The insurance policy was also not in the name of the respondent. The respondent has no insurable interest in the matter and therefore, the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. She argued that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for respondent argued that the subject vehicle was sold on 20.5.2011. As per Section 51(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the new owner of the subject vehicle i.e. the respondent, had 30 days time period to transfer the vehicle in her name. The subject vehicle could be registered in the name of respondent on 3.6.2011. The respondent also got the insurance policy transferred in her : 4 : name on 6.6.2011. The respondent had promptly initiated the process of carrying out transfer of registration and insurance policy in her name and the same was under process, but in the meanwhile the vehicle met with an accident on 27.5.2011. Thus, the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and this appeal has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Ram Murti and others 2000(I) MPLJ 415 to support his arguments.
8. We find that it is not in dispute that the subject vehicle was purchased by the respondent on 20.5.2011. The respondent had got the vehicle registered in her name on 3.6.2011. Clearly, the respondent was not the registered owner of the subject vehicle at the time of accident i.e. on 27.5.2011.
9. The respondent has not been able to show as to when she had approached the RTO regarding transfer of the subject vehicle. As per provisions contained in Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the transferee has 14 days period from the date of transfer of the vehicle to apply for transfer of insurance policy in his/her name. The vehicle, which met with an accident on 27.5.2011, was not registered in the name of respondent and the insurance policy was also in the name of the previous owner. The respondent thus has no insurable interest in the matter.
10. The referred matter, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Ram Murti and others (supra.), postulates the liability of Insurance Company, when there is transfer of registration of : 5 : the vehicle and is not applicable to the case in hand, where the vehicle is still registered in the name of the previous owner.
11. The District Commission has thus erred in allowing the complaint without considering the fact that that the respondent has no insurable interest in the matter.
12. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
13. As a result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SHANTANU KEMKAR) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy