BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1297/2006 against C.D.No.93/2005, District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Tandur, Ranga Reddy District.
2. United India Ins. Co. Limited, rep. by
Its Regional Manager, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad, through Asst. Manager,
D.O.II, S.D.Road, Hyderabad.. .Appellant/
Opposite parties 1 & 2
And
1. B.Ganapathi, S/o.B.Veeraiah,
Aged abut 36 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.6-27,Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Respondent/
Complainant
2. E.Anjaiah Goud, S/o.E.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 46 years, Occ:Business,
R/o.2-2-147/8, Saipuri Colony,
Tandur, Dist.Ranga Reddy. Respondent/
Opp.party No.3
Counsel for the Appellants:: Mr.V.krishna Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.K.Srinivas Reddy-R1
R2 served through s.s.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Hon'ble Member.)
***
This is an appeal filed by the insurance company represented by opposite parties 1 and 2, both of whom are its officers at two different levels.
The short point that arises in this appeal is whether a purchaser of a vehicle without responding transfer of the insurance policy in his favour can reap the benefits of the insurance policy in the name of the seller of the vehicle for his own damages.
The facts lie within a very narrow compass. The complainant purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.3. By the date of sale, the said vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy effective from 29-8-2003 to 28-8-2004 standing in the name of the seller of the vehicle but not transferred in favour of the complainant. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 21-5-2004 at Narkatpally on National Highway 9. The police registered a crime, it seems the vehicle was completely damaged. The complainant therefore informed the said fact to the insurance company and the insurance company appointed a surveyor and ultimately passed an order repudiating the claim on the ground that the insurance policy wasn’t got transferred in favour of the complainant and therefore the complainant cannot maintained the claim on the strength of the said policy. Aggrieved by the said repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
Opposite parties opposed the claim reiterating the self same ground.
In support of his case, the complainant filed his affidavit and did not rely upon any documents. Opposite parties did not either file an affidavit or documents, however, it seems that both sides addressed arguments before the District Forum.
On a consideration of the rival pleadings and the submissions made before it, the District Forum passed a strange order, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
‘the opposite party insurance company is directed to settle the claim
within two months based on the claim papers submitted by the complainant
etc.,”
What prompted the District Forum to pass the said order was its opinion that the accident occurred during the time of a valid policy and the real owner impleaded as opposite party No.3 filed an affidavit that he had no objection to the claim being settled in favour of the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company filed the present appeal contending that the District Forum ignored the fact that the omissions on the part of opposite party No.3 to inform the appellants about the transfer of his vehicle within the stipulated time of 14 days that itself set at naught the coverage under the insurance policy. It is also urged that the District Forum failed to consider the legal position emanating from Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 586.
Heard counsel for the appellant. Though an opportunity was given to the complainant/respondent counsel to file written arguments, he did not choose to file any such arguments.
The point that arises for consideration is whether a purchaser of a vehicle without securing transfer of the insurance policy in his favour can reap the benefits of the insurance policy in the name of the seller of the vehicle for his own damages?
Now reverting to the point framed at the outset itself, it is for the complainant to show that notwithstanding the omissions on his part as also on the part of his predecessor in title i.e. opposite party No.3 to comply with the provisions contained in Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, they are entitled to invoke the insurance policy in favour of the complainant in difference to the wishes of the opposite party No.3 as well. The law is well settled on this subject and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 ACJ 65 is a leading case on this matter. Following the said judgment, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed a ruling in III (2007) CPJ 411 (NC) wherein an identical issue had come up for determination. It is held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the transferee of a vehicle was not entitled to get the benefit of the insurance policy in the absence of any transfer of the policy as contemplated by Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is therefore very clear that the order rendered by the District Forum is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it cannot therefore be upheld.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently dismissing the complaint filed before the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER.
MEMBER
Dated 19-6.2009
