State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uiic Ltd. vs Smt. Laxmi Tanwar on 6 June, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 580/2007 Date of Decision 06.06.2008 United India Insurance Company Limited through its Assistant Divisional Manager, Shimla Division, Timber House, Cart Rod, Shimla 171 001. . Appellant Versus Smt. Laxmi Tanwar W/o Sh. Asha Ram Tanwar, R/o Tanwar Niwas, near Bhawan ITI, Solan, Tehsil & Distt. Solan, HP. . Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether Approved for reporting? For the Appellant. Mr. Harish Bahl, Advocate. For the Respondent. Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate vice counsel Mrs. Anu Tuli, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Bahl learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal stated that District Forum below was in error by holding his client liable and overlooking Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As according to him unless his client had the intimation of transfer of vehicle in question by the insured in favour of a third party like transferee in this case, latter had no insurable interest, so as to bind down the Insurance Company on the basis of the policy of insurance obtained by the transferor.
2. With a view to advance the case of his client reliance was placed by Mr. Bahl on the decision of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586.
Further according to Mr. Bahl it is imperative on a transferor to inform the Insurance Company within 14 days of the date of transfer, so that the risk in favour of the transferee is covered. Again by referring to the aforesaid decision in the case of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Supra) Mr. Bahl submitted that this is a case of own damage, therefore, it was incumbent upon the transferor as well as the transferee to have informed and got the name of the latter incorporated in the insurance policy. Admittedly that having not been done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for which he prayed for. All these pleas have been controverted on behalf of the respondent by her learned counsel.
3. In our opinion, the order passed by the District Forum below does not suffer from any infirmity to call for interference therewith. At the same time the decision of this case need not detain us in the light of the decision of the National Commission in the case of Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC). In this case after taking note of the provisions of India Motor Tariff Regulation, plea of the Insurance Company as raised in the appeal before us, was negatived by the National Commission. It also referred to the decision on the Chhattisgarh State Commission in the case of Ajimuddin Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2006) CPJ 273 and Andhra Pradesh has also taken the same view in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Babaiah, 1999 ACJ 1126 (AP).
4. This commission has also followed the above referred decisions and has negatived the plea of the Insurance Company regarding non intimation of transfer after placing reliance on the above referred decisions. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission, in Appeal No. 299/2007 decided on 2.5.2008 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Kumar & Anr.
5. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum below is upheld and parties are left to bear their own costs.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
6th June, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), d.kZ* Member.