State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uiic Ltd. vs Smt. Kirti Puri on 22 September, 2008
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Appeal No. 194/2007.
Date of Decision 22.9.2008.
United
India Insurance Company Limited,
through
its Assistant Divisional Manager,
Shimla Division, Timber House, Cart Road, Shimla 171 001.
..Appellant.
Versus
Smt.
Kirti Puri W/o Sh. Sanjeev
Puri,
R/o
Mudit Niwas, Engine Ghar, Sanjauli, Shimla.
.Respondent.
Honble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved
for reporting? No.
For the Appellant. Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate. .
For the Respondent. Mr.
Vishal Mohan, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also examined the record of the complaint file.
2. Facts as they emerge from the record of the case are, that vehicle bearing registration No. HP-03-0836 was insured with the appellant between 28.7.2002 to 27.2.2003. Policy was issued by the appellant in the name of registered owner of the said vehicle Mr. Jagdish Chand Bhogal.
3. He transferred this vehicle during the validity of the insurance policy on 24.12.2002 to respondent, Smt. Kirti Puri. At this stage we may observe, that the sale transaction between the registered owners Smt. Kirti Puri was complete with the delivery of the vehicle and it could not be disputed on behalf of the parties, that transaction was governed by Sale of Goods Act.
4. After the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent Kirti Puri by its registered owner, it met with accident on 21.6.2003 during the currency of the insurance policy above referred. Despite receipt of intimation regarding accident, claim of respondent was not settled, this resulted in filing of Complaint No. 512/2004.
District Forum below vide impugned order 27.2.2007 has allowed the complaint directing the appellant to indemnify the respondent to the extent of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 1.12.2004 till realization alongwith cost of litigation Rs. 1500/-. This payment was to be made within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order under appeal. Respondent was directed to deposit the registration certificate of the vehicle with the appellant on the receipt of the amount in terms of the order of the District Forum below. Hence this appeal by the insurance company.
5. Mr. Behal on behalf of the appellant urged, that the District Forum below gravely erred in passing the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. Per him contract of insurance like any other contract is between the two contracting parties. In the present case insurance company had undertaken to indemnify the insured the registered owner of the vehicle, after contract was entered into between it on one side and the registered owner on the other. While buttressing this submission Mr. Behal also referred to Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and urged that in case the respondent wanted to take benefit of the insurance policy subsisting on the date of transfer/accident in favour of the registered owner i.e. Mr. Jagdish Chand Bhogal, then intimation was required to be sent to his client with requisite documents showing transfer. Needful having not been done in the present case, according to Mr. Behal. This is enough to allow the appeal while setting aside the impugned order and consequently dismissing the complaint. Great emphasis was laid by Mr. Behal in support of all his submissions on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Complete Insulations (P) (Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586. On the basis of this decision Mr. Behal submitted, that in the absence of the intimation regarding transfer from both i.e. the transferor or the transferee, his client cannot be held responsible for payment of compensation, thus he prayed for allowing this appeal. This decision does not improve the case of the appellant, as the provisions of the India Motor Tariff were not considered by the Honble Supreme Court. As such the appellant cannot derive any benefit from this decision.
6. Parties in this behalf are at variance so far sending of the intimation through courier service regarding transfer is concerned.
Because according to the respondent, the transferee had sent the intimation to the appellant of the transfer of vehicle in her favour by the registered owner which position is seriously contested by Mr. Behal on behalf of the appellant. We would have ordinarily gone into this question and determined it. However we are not examining the same as in our opinion order of the District Forum below does not suffer from any illegality, so as to call for interference in this appeal.
7. Identical question on similar facts came up for consideration before the Apex Consumer Fora in the case of Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC).
National Commission after referring to the India Motor Tariff Regulation negatived the plea of insurance company like the one as urged in this appeal by Mr. Behal. It also relied upon the decision of Chhattisgarh State Commission in the case of Ajimuddin Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III (2006) CPJ 273. To similar effect is the decision of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Babaiah, 1999 ACJ 1126 (AP).
8. This commission after referring to the aforesaid decisions have taken similar view while rejecting the plea of the Insurance Company based on non intimation regarding transfer of a vehicle in Appeal No. 299/2007 decided on 2.5.2008 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Kumar & Anr., and Appeal No. 580/2007 decided on 6.6.2008 in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Smt. Laxmi Tanwar. Thus we are of the opinion that this appeal deservers to be rejected being without any merit. Ordered accordingly.
9. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing this appeal, order of the District Forum below in Complaint No. 512/2004, dated 27.2.2007 is upheld, leaving the parties 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 Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
22nd September, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), d.kZ* Member.