ORDER
(Passed this on-02nd December, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This is a complaint of deficiency in service against Future General India Insurance Company, the Opposite Party for repudiating the insurance claim of the stolen vehicle.
02. Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant No.-1 was the owner of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle, bearing registration No. MH-31-CP-5580. It was insured with the O.P. for the period from 04.07.2012 to 03.07.2013 for I.D.V. Rs.-3,25,000/-. He later sold the vehicle to the complainant No.-2 on 20.8.2012 and delivered its possession along with policy documents on the same day. On- 23.08.2012 both the complainants signed on Transfer Form and the complainant No.-1 gave permission to record the name of the complainant No.-2 in RTO record of the said vehicle. On 21.08.2012 the complainant No.-1 gave intimation of transfer of the vehicle to the O.P. In the meanwhile, in the night of 26.08.2012 the said vehicle was stolen. A report was given to police as well as to the O.P. Police papers and court order were provided to the O.P. and insurance claim was made. On 23.07.2013 the complainant was informed that on the day of theft, he was not the owner of the vehicle and therefore claim was not payable. Alleging the refusal as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants have claimed policy amount Rs.-3,25,000/- along with compensation and cost.
03. The O.P. by filing written version has contested the complaint. A preliminary objection is taken that the complainant No.-1 was not the owner of the vehicle on 20.08.2012 as he sold it to the complainant No.-2. He has thus no locus standi to file the complaint and therefore it is not tenable. It is further stated that there is no insurance contract between the complainant No.-2 and the O.P. and no policy was taken by the complainant No.-2 from the O.P. As such both the complainants are not consumers. As far record is concerned, the insurance of the vehicle for the period mentioned in the complaint is undisputed. The O.P. was not the party to sale transaction of the vehicle between the complainants and it is denied that sale of vehicle was informed to the O.P. on 21.8.2012. Theft of the vehicle is also denied, so also immediate intimation of the incident to the O.P. The O.P. received belated claim intimation from the complainant No.1 on or about 23.9.2012 without requisite papers. Denying all other adverse averments, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
04. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the documents, affidavit and rejoinder. Upon considering the same we record our findings and reason as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. Considering the admitted fact that on the date of theft of the vehicle the complainant No.-1 was not its owner and the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant No.-2, whether either of the complainants is entitled to claim insurance amount. The learned counsel for the O.P. has relied on some judgments to support his contention that neither of them is entitled as they are not consumers. In our opinion the legal position on this point is no more res integra. If chronology of events mentioned in the complaint are considered, we find the vehicle was sold to the complainant No.2 on 23.08.2012. Though it is mentioned that transfer was intimated to the O.P. on 21.08.2012, there is no such material in support of it, hence we do not give accept it. The vehicle was stolen on 26.08.2012. On this date the complainant No.-1 was not its owner. The insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant No.-2.
06. Learned counsel for the complainants referred to the Form No.-28 and 29, which are application for N.O.C. and notice of transfer dated 23.08.2012 and addressed to the R.T.O. It is submitted that as per the application and notice, the ownership stood transferred in the name of the complainant No.-2 on 23.08.2012. He then referred to Section- 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act which speaks about transfer of ownership of a vehicle and Section-157 which says that when a owner of an insured vehicle transfers to another person the ownership of the insured vehicle together with the policy, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred. He then contended that the complainant No.-1 had filed the transfer application on 23.08.2012 and therefore there was deemed transfer of insurance to the complainant No.2 on 23.08.2012.
07. This is wrong interpretation of the Sec- 50 of the M.V. Act. In fact, Section-50 prescribes only procedure for transfer of a vehicle and it nowhere suggests that as soon as a transfer application is made, insurance of the vehicle shall stands transferred on the very date. Section-157 of the M.V. Act provides deemed transfer of insurance certificate of the vehicle on the date when ownership of the vehicle is transferred by complying the procedure prescribed u/s 50 of the M.V. Act. If we peruse the Form No. 28 and 29, we notice that there is no receipt or acknowledgment seal of the R.T.O. It does not establish receipt of these Forms by R.T.O. There are some requirements, like payment of fees, which are to be complied with before a vehicle stands transferred. This has not been done or at least not shown to have been done. Hence, we do not accept that the vehicle was transferred on 23.8.2012.
08. The counsel for the O.P relied on some judgments. All are applicable to the facts of the present case.
- Reliance General Ins. Co. v/s Mr. Ramakant Rajgire F.A. No. A/826/2009 State Commission, Nagpur decided on 19.12.2014.
- Sk. Jalal v/s Manager, Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Revision Pet. No. 501/2015 decided on 12.10.2015 (NC)
- Ram Singh v/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Revision Pet. No. 4776/2012 decided on 14.3.2014 (NC)
The State Commission, Nagpur Bench in the first case, while upholding the contention of the O.P. Insurance company, has referred to various judgments. Relying on a Supreme Court and National Commission judgments, it is held that the deemed transfer u/s-157 of the M.V. Act is restricted to third party risk and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured which falls outside the purview of Chapter XI of the new M.V. Act and is in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee. Thus it is very clear that unless the policy is transferred in the name of the purchaser, the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to indemnify loss caused to the vehicle. The above cited judgments answer the question involved in the present case. The refusal to allow the claim by the O.P. for the
Reason stated before is therefore cannot be faulted with. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of the order be given to both the parties free of cost.
