Date : 14/01/2013.
Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. Appellant Smt.Shahida Begum W/o Saifulla Khan Pathan, who is original complainant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 23.9.2010 passed by District Forum Latur in C.C.No.341/2008, whereby District Forum has rejected the complaint of the appellant regarding insurance claim of the damaged vehicle. Respondent No.1 & 2 herein are the original opponent Nos.1 & 2 who are representatives of the Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co.Ltd.
2. Appellant/complainant`s case before the Forum in brief is that she had purchased Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.MH-19/AE-0215 from one Shri.Sharad Sukhdeo Patil on 2.1.2008 and the same was transferred in his name on the same date. That, the said vehicle was insured with the respondent for the period from 24.12.2007 to 23.12.2008 by the previous owner Shri.Sharad Patil. That, after purchase of the said vehicle the appellant had intimated the same vide her letter dated 8.1.2008 to the respondent Insurance Company and had requested to transfer the insurance policy in her name. That, on 27.6.2008 there was a fire to the car and same was totally damaged. The incident of fire was intimated to the police who had made spot panchanama and also registered FIR. She had accordingly submitted the insurance claim to the respondent Insurance Company along with necessary documents. However her claim was repudiated by respondent vide letter dated 7.9.2008 on the ground that insurance policy was not in her name but in the name of earlier owner.
It was further contended by her that the respondent Insurance Company had appointed surveyor Mr.A.G.Kote to assess the damages of the vehicle. However no survey was carried and report was submitted to her. She therefore appointed another surveyor Shri.S.U.Patki who assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.3,75,466.67 ps. and accordingly had claimed damages from Insurance Company. That she had also issued notice dated 12.11.2008 claiming the compensation of the said amount of Rs.3,75,466/- which was replied by the Insurance Company vide it`s letter dated 24.11.2008 and denied the claim of the complainant. Thus she contended that cause of action arose to her firstly on 6.9.2008 and lastly on 24.9.2011. Accordingly she filed complaint before District Forum seeking direction to the Insurance Company to pay her compensation of Rs.3,75,466.78 ps along with allied expenses of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 12%. She also sought Rs.10,000/- towards mental torture and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint.
3. Respondent Insurance Company had appeared before the Forum and submitted written version dated 18.2.2009 whereby the claim was denied in toto with cost of Rs.10,000/-. It was submitted that after having received intimation regarding the said mishap of fire to the vehicle, Insurance Company had appointed surveyor Shri.A.G.Kote who carried out the survey on 29.6.2008 and submitted assessment report. However after verifying the documents it was found that although the vehicle was transferred in the name of appellant/complainant, the insurance policy was in the name of previous owner i.e. Sharad Patil. It was further contended that no such application dated 8.1.2008 regarding transfer of insurance policy was received from the appellant as alleged by her. Therefore as insurance policy was not in her name she was not the company’s consumer and hence her claim was rightly repudiated vide letter 7.9.2008.
4. The District Forum after having perused the record and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that she had no insurable interest as insurance policy was in the name of earlier owner. District Forum therefore held appellant/complainant not as a consumer of the respondent Insurance Company and further held there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of appellant.
5. Aggrieved by said impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum the original complainant filed present appeal in this Commission. Said appeal came to be heard finally on 20.12.2012. Adv.Shri.A.B.Shinde was present for appellant whereas Adv.Shri.S.G.Chapalgaonkar was present for respondent. Both these advocates were heard at length at the stage of admission with their consent and appeal was reserved for the judgment.
6. Learned advocate Shri.A.B.Shinde present for the appellant contended that as per Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 the insurance policy is automatically transferred with the transfer of ownership in favour of purchaser and since in the present case the ownership of the vehicle was already transferred in the name of appellant/complainant the said policy was also transferred automatically. He therefore contended that Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice by repudiating the claim on false ground. In support of his above said contention he relied on following citations.
i) United India Insurance Co.Ltd. –Vs- Tilak Singh & Ors., 2006 DGLS(Soft.) 195, Supreme Court of India.
ii) Complete Insulations Private –Vs- New India Assurance Company Limited, 1995 DGLS(Soft.) 1110, in which it is observed by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India that, “Section 157 of the new Act of Motor Vehicle 1988 makes the transfer of certificate of insurance alongwith insurance policy automatic along with transfer of motor vehicle together with the policy of insurance to the purchaser”.
He also submitted that appellant/complainant had intimated about purchase of said vehicle and also transfer of ownership in her name by her application dated 8.1.2008 to the respondent Insurance Company. However the Insurance Company failed to take steps to transfer the said policy in her name and illegally denied the insurance claim of the appellant. He therefore contended that District Forum without considering these aspects has erroneously dismissed the complaint and requested to allow the appeal and claim of the complainant as per original complaint filed by appellant before the Forum.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.S.G.Chapalgaonkar submitted that respondent Insurance Company has never received the so called application dated 8.1.2008 regarding transfer of insurance policy. He submitted that as per GR-17 the procedure of transfer of insurance policy is laid down in which transferee of the vehicle has to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer with the details of registration of the vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, number and date of insurance policy along with require fees etc. However in the present case, the appellant has claimed only to have submitted the said application dated 8.1.2008 but the same has also not been received by Insurance Company, as there is no endorsement of the Insurance Company on the said application.
He also contended that as per Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 the automatic transfer of the policy along with transfer of ownership of the vehicle is considered only in respect of third party risk. He further submitted that Chapter 11 of the said Act covering Section 145 to 164 relate only to the third party risk and contended that for owner`s own risk insurance policy requires to be transferred in the name of new owner. However in the present case admittedly the insurance policy was in the name of previous owner i.e. Sharad Patil and not in the name of present appellant/complainant. Therefore she had no insurable interest and was not the consumer of the respondent Insurance Company. Thus he contended that Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company as rightly held by District Forum by way of impugned judgment and order which requires to be confirmed. In support of his above said contention he relied on following four citations.
i) Madan Singh –Vs- United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , 2009 STPL (CL) 1042 NC,
ii) Judgment and order dated 27.2.2008 in F.A.No.9/05 passed by this bench of the State Commission, Mumbai in case United India Insurance Co.Ltd. –Vs- Shankar Keshav Karle.
iii) Judgment and order dated 26.11.2010 in F.A.No.06/2010 passed by this bench of State Commission, Mumbai in case Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. –Vs- Sunil Bhimrao Jagdale and other.
iv) Judgment and order dated 18th Oct.2011 in Revision Petition No.1528/07 passed by National Commission in case New India Assurance Co.Ltd. –Vs- Dalip Kumar.
8. We have perused the record as well as considered in depth the oral submissions as put forward by both the learned counsels. Undisputed fact of the case is that on the date of mishap said insurance policy was in the name of previous owner i.e. Sharad Patil. Complainant`s contention is that she had intimated for transfer of ownership in her name to the respondent Insurance Company through her application dated 8.1.2008 and that respondent Insurance Company did not take any steps for transfer of the said policy in her name for which Insurance Company is responsible. Insurance Company however has totally denied to have received said application and further contended that for transfer of insurance policy only application is not sufficient and that the purchaser has to submit details regarding registration of the vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and number and date of insurance policy and has to pay fees, which has not been done in the present case by the appellant. Even from the perusal of the said application dated 8.1.2008 we do not find any endorsement regarding receipt of the same by the Insurance Company. Therefore contention of appellant that she filed application dated 8.1.2008 for the insurance policy cannot be accepted. The result is on the date of said mishap insurance policy was in the name of previous owner.
9. It is also to be noted that Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which provides for automatic transfer of insurance policy in the name of purchaser along with transfer of ownership only in respect of third party risk and do not provide for owner`s risk. As contended by learned counsel Shri.Chapalgaonkar for the respondent Insurance Company that the Chapter 11 containing Section 145 to 164 including the Sec.157 pertain only to third party risk of the insurance policy. The case laws referred to by learned counsel for the appellant also totally supported his contention that for the entitlement of the insurance benefit to the own of the vehicle the insurance policy should be transferred in his name. It is further worth to be noted that even the ratio given in citations as relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant makes it clear that automatic transfer of policy as provided U/s 157 is only in respect of 3rd party risk. However, in the present case since the insurance policy was in the name of appellant/complainant on the relevant date she cannot be treated as “consumer” of the respondent Insurance Company which is rightly held by District Forum below. It can also be stated that appellant/complainant was not having insurable interest and therefore she cannot be said to have entitled to receive any benefit under the said policy.
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we therefore find no merits in the present appeal and hence we are inclined to dismiss the same by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum below. Hence, the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on 14.01.2013.
