Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/527

ANITA AHLAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission,WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No. 527/2012

Smt. Anita Ahlawat

wife of Sh. Mohan Ahlawat

r/o 1-12, Sector-22, NOIDA

U.P.- 201301.                                                          .......... Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Company Ltd.

Plot No.1, Second Floor, DLF,

Industrial Area, Moti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015.                                                  .......... Respondent

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

01.08.2012 12.10.2022 31.10.2022

       

Ms Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms Richa Jindal, Member

Mr Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

ORDER BY: Ms Richa Jindal (Member)

 

ORDER

 

1. The Complaint has been filed UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT by the complainant. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

 

1. The complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. UP 16Y-2425 (Mahindra M Hawk) bearing Engine No. HA94K30361, Chasis No. 92K25514, which was insured with the respondent vide Policy bearing No. 06-12-1104-1801-00027366 for IDV of Rs 6,18,000/-, Valid from 03.11.2011 to 2.11.2012 on payment of premium of Rs 2875 to OP.
2. On 23.2.2012 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was heavily damaged ina road accident.
3. The complainant duly informed the OP about the accident and the Surveyor from the OP came for a spot inspection and the same was done from all corners. Photographs on spot took place from all corners.
4. Thereafter, the Surveyor of the respondent collected all the required documents from the complainant and the Claim form was filled up bearing Claim No. OC-12-1103-1801-00017348 and the complainant were fully assured to pay the amount of the damages caused to the vehicle and Surveyor also suggested the complainant to get repaired the said vehicle at her own expense and all the expenses incurred by the complainant will be refunded by the respondent accordingly.
5. On the assurances given by the respondent the complainant got the vehicle repaired at her own expense for a sum of Rs 1,77,960/- made on 2/5/2012 from concept Automobiles Pvt Ltd. but the respondent failed to pay the amount of the damages caused to the vehicle, even after repeated requests and visits made by the complainant, nothing is gained except false assurances from the Insurer/respondent.
6. The complainant instead received a letter dated 10th April 2012 in which OP wrote that at the material time of damage of the car, the vehicle was sold prior to the loss and the complainant had no insurable interest/expressed its inability to be of any assistance.
7. Said Letter was duly replied vide legal notice dated 16.4.2012 through OP’s Counsel to the aforesaid letter dated 10.4.2012 sent by the OP, in which the complainant while admitting the sale of this subject vehicle to one Shri Ramesh Yadav on 21.03.2012 had explained that the said vehicle was damaged within the validity of the insurance period of 3.11.2011 to 2.11.2012 hence the complainant was rightful/registered owner of the said vehicle is entitled to receive the claim amount as promised by the Insurer. But the respondent being clever is trying to avoid the claim amount by taking the plea of different-different types.
8. The complainant thereby received a repudiation letter dated 6th Jun-2012 issued by the OP and thereby rejecting the claim,
9. The aforesaid letter dated 6.6.2012 duly replied by the complainant vide reply dated 4.7.2012 through her counsel, whereby   even after service of the reply vide Registered post but the respondent knowingly and intentionally remained quite mum neither made the claim amount nor taken any necessary step for the claimed amount, till date.
10. Since then, the complainant is visiting and making efforts for demanding the claim amount as sanctioned by the respondent but the same has not been given to the complainant with the malafide intention of the Surveyor, who is demanding amounting of Rs.10,000/- towards the satisfaction of the claim amount. Hence this complaint before this commission wherein the complainant is entitled to receive the incurred amount of Rs.1,77,960/- towards the repair of the vehicle under the direction of the complainant with interest thereof 24% per annum and the complainant is also entitled to receive compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the mental agony, physically and financially losses and damages caused by the respondent.

 

2. Accordingly, on 8/8/2012, after hearing arguments on admission, notice was issued to the op to appear before Commission on 8/10/2012, on the said date Counsel for OP appeared and filed a reply to the complaint, wherein he took the following preliminary objections:-

1. The complainant had sold the subject vehicle prior to the date of its alleged theft and had realized sale consideration and delivered the vehicle to the buyer. By the alleged theft of the vehicle, the complainant has suffered no monetary loss and hence she cannot be an aggrieved person. The complaint, therefore, is not maintainable.
2. The insurance policy covers the insured pecuniary interest in the vehicle. Once the insured loses his pecuniary interest, the policy ceases to be in operation for the lack of the insured’s interest in the vehicle and no claim can be set up under such a policy.
3. The contract of motor insurance is a contract of indemnity. After selling the vehicle and realizing the price of the vehicle the complainant does not need to be indemnified.
4. By a loss of a vehicle belonging to another person as of the date of loss, the complainant cannot hope to make a profit from insurance. It is against public policy to derive monetary advantage out of the misfortune of another. The respondent believes that the court would not assist a complainant in his attempt to obtain an illegal gain from another’s misfortune.
5. That, upon sale of the vehicle to someone else, the complainant divested herself of her insurable interest in the vehicle. The buyer had become the owner of the vehicle from the date of its sale, irrespective of whether the registration of the vehicle had been transferred to the buyer or not. This is the settled law as declared by various high courts and the Hon’ble National Commission. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.C. Deena Dayal III 2008 CPJ 260 (NC).
6. That upon sale of the vehicle, the seller insured has the following three options:

1. He can transfer the insurance in favour of the buyer with the consent of the insurer and provided specified formalities are completed by the buyer  and the requisite fee and no-claim bonus (if applicable) is paid back to the insurer, or

2. If the seller does not so transfer the insurance to the buyer, he can claim a refund of the balance amount of the insurance premium for the remaining period of insurance, or
3. He can opt to retain the insurance with himself to protect himself against any third-party claims which might fall upon him by virtue of his being the registered owner on the date of occurrence, or
4. The seller could get the insurance transferred to any other vehicle of the same class he would purchase for his use.
5. In the present case, the seller had not opted to go by the first opinion and hence the insurance policy lapsed for the reason of lack of her insurable interest as from the date of sale of the vehicle and no claim can be set up under such a lapsed policy for loss of or damage to the vehicle.

7. The denying liability for the claim by a seller in which she is left with no insurable interest in the vehicle, there is no deficiency in service of respondents and hence the complaint is not admissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. In Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 2000 I SCC 66 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:

“In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist on grant of relief under the (Consumer Protection) Act for the alleged acts of Commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bonafide disputes, no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed.”

1. That the complaint is fraudulent and is collusive with the real owner of the vehicle to extract a wrongful claim from the respondent and it merits to be dismissed.
10. The complainant might have been the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the alleged occurrence of theft, but she is not a real owner of the vehicle as, according to the Sales of Goods Act, the ownership of the vehicle vests in the buyer as from the date of sale and delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.
11. The Insurance policy specifically states thus:

“Subject to the terms exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed or expressed hereon;

The company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder…..”

• The insurance policy thus undertakes to indemnify the person names as insured in the insurance policy and to no one else. This is applicable only when the insured person needs an indemnification. In the present case, as submitted above, the insured complainant does not need indemnification as she is no longer the owner of the vehicle and hence cannot claim under the policy.
• According to the investigator the vehicle had already been sold to Mr Ramesh Yadav long before the date of theft.
•  The complainant has given a statement dated 16.03.2012 clearly stating that she had sold the vehicle on 18.02.2012 to Mr Ramesh Yadav and the same has been delivered to him after receiving full payment. The said statement is part of the investigation report. It is relevant to see that the complainant says that the claim be given to Ramesh Yadav.
• That as per the statements on record, the driver, Mr Priyanshu, was the driver of Mr Ramesh Yadav and not of the complainant. The Complainant has tried to mislead the respondent by stating in the claim form that the said driver was her own relative.
• The owner of the vehicle, Mr Ramesh Yadav, has given a separate statement dated 16.3.2012 in which he has also affirmed that the vehicle was purchased by him and it was being driven by his driver.
•  There is also a breach of condition no. 1 of the policy as the intimation of the occurrence was not given to this respondent immediately.
• The respondent's decision to repudiate the claim is by the provisions of the insurance policy as also by the law applicable to insurance contracts and further as per the Sales of Goods Act. There is no deficiency in service and the complaint merits being dismissed.
• After the sale of the vehicle there remained no privity of contract between the complainant and this respondent since the subject matter of insurance no longer remained in the ownership of the complainant. The complaint, therefore, merits being dismissed.
• The complainant is not consumer on and from the date, the insurance policy lapsed for lack of insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle which was sold and delivered to the buyer much prior to the date of the alleged loss.
• The complainant is not entitled to the claim, nor any compensation, interest, costs or any other relief whatsoever.
• The complaint is collusive to extract a wrongful claim from the respondent. This is clear from the complainant's statement dt. 16.3.12 when she says that the claim amount is given to Ramesh Yadav.
• The complainant has misled this Hon'ble Forum by stating that the vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor on the spot. The complainant gave intimation late and the vehicle could be inspected only on 29.2.2012. The intimation of the occurrence was not given immediately as required by policy condition no. 1 which is as under:

"1.Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the Insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require...."

10. There is a breach of the policy condition and for this reason, also the claim is not admissible.
25. That, although the vehicle is stated to have been damaged in a collision with another vehicle, no police report was lodged. The relevant policy condition states as under:

"... in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the Insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender."

26. That the condition no. 8 of the policy states as under:

“8. The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy."

In view of this there being a breach of conditions precedent to liability, no claim can be set up under the said policy.

1. The complainant has wrongly and with ulterior motives stated that she was assured by anyone on behalf of the respondent that the amount of damage caused to the vehicle would be paid. This allegation is also contrary to the subsequent statement of the complainant in the same para where it is stated that the complainant was suggested to get the repair of the vehicle done at her own expense. This suggestion is given only in those cases where the claim is not payable under the policy.
28. The insurance lapsed for lack of insurable interest of the insured, and the complainant remaining a merely registered owner of the vehicle, no claim for own damage to the vehicle can be set up under the policy.
55. The respondents take strong objection to the malicious allegation of the complainant against the surveyor. It is relevant to state that the surveyor inspected the vehicle on 29.2.2012 and the very next day he submitted his report assessing the loss part-wise in detail. It is after the decision on the claim was communicated, the complainant has chosen to levy false and malicious allegations. The respondents request this Hon'ble Forum to take note of the complainant's conduct and dismiss the complaint with a heavy penalty as suggested by the Hon'ble National Commission for such cases where the complainant makes false averments.
82. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhankar Singh (Revision Petition No. 592 of 2005 decided on 19.5.2006) Mr Justice M.B. Shah, President of The Hon'ble National Commissions has issued the directions under "We direct that in future, the District Forums and the State Commissions all over the country would take into consideration that if false averments are made in pleadings or evidence, appropriate direction/ order imposing penalty depending upon the facts of the case would be passed."
109. The complainant is not entitled to any claim, nor any amount towards interest compensation cost or any other relief whatsoever. It is however submitted that the damage to the vehicle does not exceed the amount as assessed by the surveyor.

3.      The complainant filed a rejoinder on 07/02/2013 to the reply of OP, wherein the complainant made the following submissions in rebuttal to the reply filed on behalf of the OPs:

1. It is further denied that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle prior to the date of its alleged theft and had realized sale consideration and delivered the vehicle to the buyer. It is further denied that by the alleged theft of the vehicle the complainant has suffered no monetary loss and hence she cannot be an aggrieved person. It is submitted that said vehicle bearing No. UP-16Y-2425 (SCORPIO) was not theft, but the same was damaged due to an accident, and prior to the date of the accident, the said vehicle in question has not been sold out by the complainant to any person, while the said vehicle has been sold out by the complainant recently, therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed by her in her complainant.
2. At the time of the accident, the complainant was the owner of the said vehicle and he has the right to get the compensation amount from the insurance company being the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation/claim amount.
3. It is specifically denied that by a loss of a vehicle belonging to another person as of the date of loss, the complainant cannot hope to make a profit from insurance. It is further denied that it is against public policy to derive monetary advantage out of the misfortune of another. It is further denied that the respondent believes that the court would not assist a complainant in his attempt to obtain a misfortune. illegal gain from others! It is submitted that the respondent is making a false plea(s) just to escape from its liabilities while being an owner of the said vehicle at the time of the incident/ accident, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount and being the insurer of the vehicle, the respondent can pay the claim amount.
4. It is submitted that at the time of the accident of the said vehicle the complainant was the registered owner of the said vehicle and at the time of claiming the complainant was also the registered owner of the said vehicle, therefore the insurance company respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is specifically denied that in denying liability for the claim by a seller in which she is left with no insurable interest in the vehicle, there is no deficiency in service of respondents and hence the complaint is not admissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that the complainant never sold the vehicle in question before the accident, on the day of the accident and on after the accident, and when the claim was filed by the complainant she was the registered owner of the said vehicle as per registration certificate of the said vehicle which was in the name of the complainant, therefore, the question of left with no insurable interest in the vehicle does not arise, while when the respondent failed to pay the claim amount despite insurer of the said vehicle, the respondent is in deficiency in service on its part, and liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
6. It is submitted that the complainant never sold the vehicle in question prior to the accident, on the day of the accident and on after the accident, and when the claim was filed by the complainant, she was the registered owner of the said vehicle as per registration certificate of the said vehicle which was in the name of the complainant.
7. it is submitted that the complainant never sold the vehicle in question before the accident, on the day of the accident and on after the accident, and when the claim was filed by the complainant, she was the registered owner of the said vehicle as per registration certificate of the said vehicle which was in the name of the complainant, and as the vehicle in question was insured by the respondent at the time of the accident, therefore the respondent is liable to pay the amount.
8. it is submitted that the complainant never sold the vehicle in question prior to the accident, on the day of the accident and on after the accident, and when the claim was filed by the complainant, she was the registered owner of the said vehicle as per registration certificate of the said vehicle which was in the name of the complainant, therefore the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount to the complainant as prayed by her in her complaint.

4. The complainant had filed evidence by way of an affidavit testifying to all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents:

1. The copy of the RC and Insurance Policy is exhibited as Ex.CW1/A & B respectively.
2. The Letters and the relies are exhibited as Ex. CW1/C (colly).
3. Copy of bills are exhibited as Ex CW1/D (colly)

 

5. Thereafter when the matter was adjourned for OP evidence, Ms Seema Sehrawat, Sr. Executive (Legal) of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd had filed evidence by way of an affidavit testifying to all the facts stated in the reply along with documents affirming the facts alleged in there reply. The OP has filed their evidence as OPW1/1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents:

1. The copy of the Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions is exhibited as Ex.R1.
2. The investigation report is exhibited as Ex. RW2.
3. A Copy of the Claim form is exhibited as Ex RW3.
4. A copy of the Survey Report is exhibited as Ex RW4.

 

6. Both parties filed written arguments by 27/01/2014 and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
7. Oral arguments were heard on 12/10/2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions from the parties.

 

8. During the arguments learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP had not cleared his genuine claim on false and flimsy ground.

 

9. The short question for adjudication in this complaint is whether the rejection of the claim filed by the complainant consequent upon the accident, done by the OPs suffers from any infirmity and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to the claim.

 

10. This Commission while deciding the present matter observed that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves a liberal construction.

 

11. Before going into the merits of this case, we have relied upon the following judgments on the point of insurable interest.

 

12. In the case of Prakash Chand Daga vs. Savita Sharma &Ors. I (2019) ACC 49 (SC) wherein, it is held as under:

"8. In the decision in Naveen Kumar (supra) the legal position was adverted to and this Court observed as under: "13. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression "owner" in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the Act, would be treated as the "owner". However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner.

 

13. Where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression "owner" in Section 2(30), departing from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty.
14. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the "owner" of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded with a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma (2015)3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi (2014) 14 SCC 142.

 

15. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 indicates that the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered is the owner and the only two exceptions to that principle are where such a person is a minor or where the subject vehicle is under a hire purchase agreement. The decision of this Court in Purnya Kala Devi (supra), it has been submitted, related to a situation where the offending vehicle had been requisitioned by a state government. Similarly, the decision in Reshma (supra) dealt with a situation where the vehicle had been financed against a hypothecation agreement. It was in this background that this Court held that the person in possession of the vehicle under a hypothecation agreement was to be treated as the owner. Having 1 (2015) 3 SCC 679 2 (2014) 14 SCC 142 regard to the definition contained in Section 2(30), in Pushpa alias Leela vs. Shakuntala, the position has been clarified by holding that where notwithstanding the sale of a vehicle, neither the transferor nor the transferee has taken any step for change in the name of owner in the certificate of registration, the person in whose name the registration stands must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act.
16. Section 50 of MV Act casts the onus of changing the name in the registration certificate, on both the transferor as well as the transferee, and hence the transferor (the registered owner) cannot be made liable, and the transferee who has control over the use of the vehicle should be made liable.” 6 The expression ‘owner’ is defined in Section 2(30) of the M V Act, 1988, thus:

“2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and about a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” The person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act. The use of the expression ‘means’ is a clear indication of the position that it is the registered owner whom Parliament has regarded as the owner of the vehicle.

 

In the earlier Act of 1939, the expression ‘owner’ was defined in Section 2(19) as follows:

“11…2. (19) ‘owner’ means, where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 made a specific change by recasting the earlier definition. Section 2(19) of the earlier Act stipulated that where a person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner and where the motor vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement would be the owner. The Act of 1988 has provided in the first part of Section 2(30) M V Act that the owner would be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Where such a person is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner. In relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would be the owner. The latter part of the definition is like an exception which applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or hypothecation.

Otherwise, the definition stipulates that for the Act, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is treated as the owner.

17. Section 50 of MV Act deals with the procedure for transfer of ownership, and provides as follows:

“50. Transfer of ownership.—(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,— (a) the transferor shall,—

(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and

(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)— (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,— (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferred if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant a such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;

(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor so that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.

(2) Where—

(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or

(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, the Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with a such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under sub-section (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, instead of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section (5):

Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.

(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub-section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.

(5) For sub-section (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle or the other person in making the application under sub-section (2). 32 (6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1), or an application under sub-section (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.

 

18. A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and the original registering authority if it is not the original registering authority.”

 

19.   In the course of its decision, the two-judge Bench referred to the earlier decision in Dr T V Jose v Chacko P M4, which had arisen under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. In that context, this Court had held thus:

“12…There can be a transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the appellant continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of RTO as the owner. The appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr Roy Thomas in these appeals.” (Id at page 244) The decision in Dr T V Jose was followed in P P Mohammed v K Rajappan.

Noticing that the decision in Dr T V Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Court in Pushpa held that the ratio of the decision “shall apply with equal force to the facts of the cases arising under the 1988 Act” in view of the provisions of Section 2(30) and Section 50. Consequently, the view of this Court was that the person whose name continues in the record of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle is equally liable together with the insurer.

The submission of the petitioner is that a failure to intimate the transfer will only result in a fine under Section 50(3) but will not invalidate the transfer of the vehicle. In Dr T V Jose v Chacko P M4 (2001)8 SCC 748, this Court observed that there can be a transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. But for the Act, the person whose name is reflected in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner. "

20. In the case of Didar Singh & Anr. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2014) 1 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus:-

"6........

"15................ Respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions contained under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff as per which certificate of insurance has to be transferred in the name of the purchaser. GR-17 provides as follows:-

GR-17. Transfers :

The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under-recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy, so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue a fresh certificate of Insurance.

21. The Hon'ble National Commission in similar circumstances in case Om Prakash Sharma v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &Ors., 2009 (1) CLT-29 (NC) observed in Para 3 as follows:-

"As by the time the car met with an accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of a claim by the Insurance Company cannot be termed as a deficiency in service."

22. In the case of United India Insurance Company &Ors. Vs. Bhupinder Singh, III (2014) CPJ 20 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-

"9. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the order of the National Commission in "Shri Narayan Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., as reported in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), in which it was held that the benefits under the policy automatically accrue to the new owner on transfer of the vehicle. The learned Counsel has also drawn attention to the order of the National Commission in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Subhash Chand Kataria&Anr., as reported in II (2008) CPJ 324 (NC) in which the same principle has been stated. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited. v. Om Prakash Gupta &Anr., as reported in I (2009) CPJ 183 (NC), the National Commission passed their order based on GR-10 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee. However, all these orders passed by the National Commission do not help the complainant/respondents at all, because the ownership of the vehicle has not been transferred to the complainant. The question of 'automatic transfer' of insurance policy arises only if the ownership is transferred, but the said vehicle stands in the name of the original owner only."

23.   In the case The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Thakur, 2014 (1) CPR 48 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that:

7. Perusal of GR.17 clearly reveals that the respondent was entitled to 'on damages' of the vehicle only if he had applied for transfer of insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of registration certificate in his name. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent applied for a transfer of insurance policy in his name on 30.6.2006, whereas the accident had already taken place on 25.6.2006. As the respondent did not apply for the transfer of insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of the transfer of the registration certificate, the petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating the claim.

24.   Reliance is placed on judgment of this Commission delivered on 21.2.2013 in R.P.No.3502 of 2009 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shaik Dawood &Anr, while discussing GR.17 and the judgment of Apex Court, it was observed as Under:

"In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of the vehicle. Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim".

25.   Similarly, three members Bench of the Commission in the case of Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr. - 1(2009) CPJ 158 (NC), after considering the entire facts of the case, has held that in the case of own damage, unless and until the policy is transferred in the name of a new owner, an insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss.

26.   He placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission in Didar Singh & Anr. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2014) CPJ 1 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamal Tour and Travels, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC) National Commission has observed thus:-

"9. It is not in dispute that Respondent had got the vehicle insured with the Petitioner/ Insurance Company which was involved in an accident-causing loss of the vehicle and which was assessed by the Petitioner's Surveyor at Rs.2,57,455/-. There is, however, credible documentary evidence in the instant case that at the time when the accident took place, insuree had already sold the vehicle to another person. He also did not inform the Petitioner/Insurance Company regarding the sale of the vehicle nor was the vehicle transferred in the name of new owner. As stated by the Counsel for Petitioner, in a case under similar circumstances, this Commission has given a clear ruling that if a vehicle is sold by the insuree to another person without intimation to the Insurance Company then in case of any claim covered under the insurance policy, the insuree ceases to have an insurable interest."

27.   In Shivaji vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2012) CPJ 437 (NC) held that - No intimation by the seller (complainant or purchaser to OP) regarding the transfer of vehicle which is an insurable property covered under section 19 of sale of goods act of Bhilave Judgement and sale was complete as the new owner took possession thereof. Section 157, 50 and GR 17 of Motor Tariff Regulation not complied with – no insurable interest left therefore and claim rightly repudiated by ins. Co. District Commission order set aside by State Commission which allowed the complaint.

 

28.   Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Murlidhar Vs National  Insurance Co. Ltd. and others; I (2017) CPJ 510 (NC), wherein it was held that it was the duty of the complainant to have applied to the insurance company for the transfer of policy along with necessary documents including the consent of the previous owner. It was further held that as the policy stands in the name of the original owner, the complainant does not have any insurable interest in the matter and the repudiation of the claim by the insurer was held to be justified.

 

29.   Another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan Singh; II (2016) CPJ 454 (NC). In the said case, there was no documentary evidence to prove that the registered owner of the vehicle had written letters to the insurance company seeking a transfer of insurance policy in favour of his son. It was held that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle.

 

30.   In Reliance Gen. Ins. Vs. Shyam Bansal decided (18.11.2016) by Hon’ble National Commission while dealing with a vehicle sold on 05.08.2009 by the complainant to an accident which occurred on 14.02.2011 held that subsequent purchaser by obtaining insurance in name of complainant committed illegality and that the complainant had no insurable interest thereby reversing decision of District Forum which had allowed the complaint also and Hon’ble State Commission decision in the appeal filed by Ins. Company Complaint dismissed. Revision Petition was heard by National commission, wherein insurance company, accident ownership and insurance not disputed by insurance company but complainant obtained insurance post sale had no insurable interest held SCDRC erred in concluding complainant being owner as RC was in his name contrary to law as vehicle stand sold and not got transferred in new name.

 

31.   In Murlidhar Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others; I (2017) CPJ 510 (NC) decided on 30/09/2016 wherein National commission held in a case where complainant got vehicle RC before Insurance could be transferred vehicle got stolen and District Forum had allowed complaint on the basis that RC being in complainant’s name he was eligible to get benefit of policy as per IMT rules. OP challenged the order by way of appeal to SCDRC by insurance company. SCDRC had allowed the appeal held that policy was not transferred and complainant had no insurable interest.

32.   It has been stated in the orders passed by the consumer fora below that in the registration certificate etc., the complainant was still shown as the owner of the vehicle, when the accident took place. The matter has already been considered by this Commission in a number of cases, and decided already. It has been stated in on lines of judgement of Honb’le National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3216/2015, Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sombir, decided on 16.08.2016 as follows:-

The provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, have also been discussed in detail and it has been brought out that for claims relating to own damage, a specific request has to be made with the insurance company within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle for effecting transfer of the insurance policy in his name.  It has been stated in the order as follows:-

"12.      A perusal of the GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulation shows that the Liability Only Cover is deemed to have been transferred from the date of such transfer to a transferee, whereas for transfer of Own Damage Section of an insurance policy, a specific request has to be made by the transferee alongwith consent of transfer and a fresh proposal form has to be submitted with evidence of sale.  It is evident that there is no deemed transfer in such cases but a duty has been cast upon the transferee to make appropriate application for the transfer of policy in his name.  The natural implication of this provision is that a transferee has to apply to the insurance company within a period of 14 days of the transfer having been completed, failing which, he shall not be liable for payment of claim in the eventuality of such claim arising on account of any untoward incident."

'19. Based on the discussion above, it is amply made clear that under the provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, the relevant date for making application to the insurer for the transfer of insurance policy is the date of actual transfer of the vehicle and not the date on which the change of name in the registration book was recorded by the concerned Transport Authority.

 

33.   As stated by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh 'Madineni Kondaiah andOrs. Etc. vs Yaseen Fatima And Ors. on 22 June, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1 (1986) ACC 501 that the application to register a vehicle is only for the purpose of controlling and regulating the movement of vehicles by the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and it does not stand in the way of passing title to the purchaser. Thus it is clear he failed to intimate the transfer to the registering authorities as required under Section 31 of the Act. It is significant to note that in the counter he asserted that it is the liability of the transferee to intimate the transfer to the registering authority and the transferor cannot be blamed for the default of the transferee But we have already noticed as per the Amending Act 100 of 1956 transferor also is under an obligation to notify transfer. Thus it is clear that till the transferor complies with Section 31 of the Act the statutory liability under Section 94 continues

34.   In Rakesh Vs. Reliance General Insurance company Limited II (2017) CPJ 88 (NC) passed on 24.03.2017 the complainant was owner and insured of the subject vehicle, which was stolen with in insurance period, but claim was rejected by Insurance company taking a plea of the complainant having no insurable interest as the vehicle stood sold before theft DF had allowed the complaint and appeal by the insurance Company was allowed by SCDRC which held policy was not sufficient proof of sale as the complainant failed to establish any insurable interest. Gr 17 of IMT Regulation transfer of ownership is said to have taken place from the date of sale in case of OD claims. The order of SCDRC was upheld by Hon’ble NCDRC.

 

35.   Further an order, passed by National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maha Singh, 2014 (2) CPR 284, saying that in a similar case, this Commission had taken the view that if there was no insurable interest left in the vehicle, the claim was not payable. categorized statement made by purchaser (sellers) not been corroborated specifically for OD claim/doctrine of insurance policy specifically request had to be made by the purchaser along with cancel of transfer and a fresh proposal form has to be submitted as evidence of sale therefore NCDRC was of the formed view that complainant having admittedly sold the vehicle had no insurable interest and it is the duty of buyer to get RC or insurance transferred in his name however in future to do so original owner is not at all entitled to get claim as being admitted to sale and no insurable interest left. Argued by complainant before NCDRC transfer request of observation dealt with exhaustively has also by subsequent purchaser hold complainant father to prove his ownership or having insurable interest.

 

36.   In “Sunil Dattatray Gaurav vs. Manager, United India Insurance company” decided on 1 November, 2017 by NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI in REVISION PETITION NO. 2108 OF 2017 held that

“In the instant case, it is quite evident that on the date of the incident, the insurance policy was not in the name of the complainant rather the policy which was going to expire just a few days after the accident, was never transferred in his name.  The complainant has not made any averment anywhere that he made any attempt to get the policy transferred in his name.  As stated in the order of the District Forum also, the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 14.10.2002, but still he has nowhere stated that he made attempts to have the vehicle transferred in his name. Based on these facts, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. This revision petition being without any merit, is ordered to be dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs.”

37.  In Sunil Dattatray Gaurav vs Manager, United India Insurance company”(supra) as well as Madan Singh vs. United India Insurance Co." [I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)], the State Commission held that section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was applicable only in third party claims and not for own damage cases.

 

38.   In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs R. Henry Rajesh decided on 23 February, 2017 Hon’ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI in REVISION PETITION NO. 4575 OF 2013 held that

        “ Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that letter dated 11.9.2009 was sent by complainant at Chennai address, in the absence of branch address in insurance policy, by this letter it was nowhere requested that insurance policy be transferred in his name and has also not attached payment of fee of Rs.50/- which was required to be sent as per GR 17 of India Motor Tariff.  In the absence of payment of requisite fee, alleged request for change of name of previous owner in the insurance policy could not have been done by OP and in such circumstances, it can be held that complainant did not get insurance policy transferred in his name as required under Section 157 (2)  Motor Vehicle Act. As insurance policy not stood transferred in the name of complainant before the date of the accident, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation for damage to the vehicle in the light of the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 2355 of 2012 - Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. &Anr., and learned State Commission committed error in awarding cost of repair along with compensation and revision petition is to be allowed.”

 

39.   Randhir Jain vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. decided  on 27 October, 2017 by NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI in REVISION PETITION NO. 3474 OF 2013 held that

“The insurance policy in question was not transferred in favour of the complainant and hence, the stand taken by the insurance company that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, is substantiated from record. ”

40.   Hon’ble National Commission in case “ Gurbinder Singh Cheema vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.” on 14 December, 2017 in REVISION PETITION NO. 2712 OF 2017 held that

“The petitioner should have applied within fourteen days of the purchase of the car from Mr Sanjeev Singhla for transfer of insurance to his name. Further, the benefit of deemed transfer under section 157 is only applicable to a 3rd party insurance. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well as damages caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside the Chapter XI of the Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle.  Hence on the date of the accident, i.e., 06.05.2007, the insurance policy did not stand transferred in the name of the petitioner nor was he covered under the deemed cover clause.  Hence, on the date of the accident, i.e., 06.05.2007, he had no insurable interest in the said vehicle on two counts (i) he had no insurance policy in his name to claim compensation for the damage to the car as on that date and secondly, on the date of filing of the complaint, he was not the owner of the car as he had already sold the car to Aman Deep Singh. These facts have been concealed in his complaint. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order.”

 

41.   Admittedly the complainant is the owner as well as the insured of vehicle which met with an accident without policy period claim submitted before insurance company/OP by complainant along with RC and insurance certificate and repair bills. complainant filed complaint before District Forum that vehicle owned by some other person proof of sale/purchase no penalty of claimant with complainant and ins. Complainant. therefore GR 17 transfer of own damage to be made by transferee naming the insurer on request DF allowed appeal before SCDRC set aside order of DF sale established in review petition before NCDRC no compliance of Section 157 or section 57 of MV act for transfer of certificate of insurance and transfer of ownership done by complainant within stipulated period of 14 days as per section 157 of MV act &further 14 days under section 50).

 

43.   Hon’ble Supreme Court in their landmark judgement of M/S. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd on 21 November, 1995 reported in 1996 SCC (1) 221 / AIR 1996 SC 586 held that

"20. This Court dealt with the provisions of Chapter XI and explained that it concerns only third party risks and as a result the details contained in Section 157 must be limited for that purpose. The above extract emphasis that if the policy covers other risks that would be a matter which falls outside Chapter XI and would rest in the domain of contract for which there has to be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee. In that case the Court held that there was no such agreement since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee and was held therefore not to be liable to make good the damage.

“It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle”

 

44.   Hon’ble National Commission in “Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Dr. Manoj Kumar Khatri“ in Revision Petition No. 965 of 2015 Decided On, 03 May 2018 held that

“Based on the discussion above, it is amply made clear that under the provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, the relevant date for making application to the insurer for the transfer of insurance policy is the date of actual transfer of the vehicle and not the date on which the change of name in the registration book was recorded by the concerned Transport Authority.

It has been discussed in the order mentioned above that for transfer of Own Damage Section of the insurance policy, a specific request has to be made by the transferee along with consent of transfer and a fresh proposal form has to be submitted with evidence of sale. In the present case, the documents placed on record make it clear that the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar and then further to Goldy, but no steps were taken by any of these persons for getting the policy transferred in their name. We, therefore, have no option, but to agree with the contention raised by the petitioner that on the date of the incident, the complainant had no insurable interest ”. In this case vehicle was sold by complainant but no steps taken for getting policy transferred by complainant geld complainant had no insurable interest and original owner was not entitled to claim.

 

46.   In a Landmark judgment of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandrakant Bhujangrao Jogdandi II (2010) CPJ, 170 (NC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rakhwant Singh II (2016) CPJ 685 (NC) held that

“The Complainant is not entitled to the sum insured since on the date of accident, the insurance policy had not been transferred in favour of the Complainant and it is stood in the name of the previous owner. Accordingly, the Complainant had no insurable interest under the said policy. Consequently, the orders of fora below suffer from illegality, which are required to be set aside.”

47.   The similar matter has been examined by the Bench of National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. G.T. Shiva kumar in R.P. No. 486 of 2009 decided on n 28.8.2009 with reference to GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as also the scope of Section 157 which has been explained by the Apex Court in Complete insulations (P) Ltd. V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 221.

General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act provides :-

GR.17. Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

48.  The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.

49.   In case of Package Policies, transfer of the Own Damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferees entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.

50.     A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued.

51.    In terms of the said Regulation, the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes and issue of fresh certificate of insurance. In case of package policies, the transfer of Own Damage in favour of the transferee shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request along with consent of the transferor. The difference in No Claim Bonus, if the transferee is not entitled to same, is required to be taken into consideration and difference, if any is required to be paid by the transferee. Besides this, fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of package policies.

52.    We have considered the evidence on record and ratio discussed above and come to the conclusion that even if we accept the contentions made by OP in their written statement that the complainant had sold his car to Mr Ramesh Yadav on 18/02/2012, whereas the vehicle in question was damaged in an accident on 23/02/2012. At the time of accidental damage to the car, the name of the owner of the car as per the record of RTO is of the complainant.

53.     In case of Prakash Chand Daga vs. Saveta Sharma &Ors. Reported in I (2019) ACC 49 (SC) wherein, it is held as under: "8. In the decision in Naveen Kumar (supra) the legal position was adverted to and this Court observed as under:

"13. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decisions is that in view of the definition of the expression "owner" in Section 2(30), it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the "owner". However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a motor vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the Registering Authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability.

 

54. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression "owner" in Section 2(30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2(19) in the earlier 1939 Act. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2(30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the Registering Authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the "owner" of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2(30). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly, the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma (2015) 3 SCC 679 and Purnya Kala Devi (2014) 14 SCC 142.

 

55. In view of the Survey report filed by the OP The basic issue involved in the matter is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim to the complainant, although the insurance policy in the name of the previous owner was never transferred in favour of the complainant.

 

56. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a vehicle, bearing registration No. UP-16-Y-2425 from the complainant.  The said vehicle had been insured for a sum of Rs 6.18 lakh for the period from 03.11.2011 to 02.11.2012 in the name of the original owner, i.e., the complainant.  The respondent No. 1/OP-1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company is the insurer of the vehicle.  in the present case, the complainant was required to inform the Opposite Party regarding transfer of the vehicle and to take policy in the name of Rajesh Yadav and despite knowing the fact that the complainant is no more registered owner, still she continued to obtain policy and paid premium.

 

57. The insured vehicle i.e. Mahindra Scorpio HWKBS3TC5 BLK 2WD RHD insured with OP for a sum of Rs. 6,18,000/- on payment of premium by complainant. Admittedly RC issued by Transport Authority of UP on 06.04.2010 in the name of complainant having insured policy vide policy no. OC-12-1104-1801-00027366.On 23.02.2012 said vehicle met with an accident within insurance period hence claim reported vide claim no.OC-12-1103-1801-00017348 lodged by complainant with OP but OP vide letter dated 110.01.2012 to complainant observed that vehicle was sold prior to loss and therefore no insurable interest. Hence claim stands repudiated. Under Motor Tariff Rules by IRDA. The complainant vide legal notice has admitted that  vehicle was sold on 21.03.2012 her to Ramesh Yadav (RC dated 21.03.2012) but said vehicle suffered loss prior to sale when both RC and insurance in the name of complainant. On 06.06.2012 OP rejected claim/stands repudiated, which was objected on 04.07.2012 by complainant through counsel and therefore Complainant was filed. In reply OP categorically stated that vehicle sold prior to accident relied upon survey dated 29.02.2012. According to Surveyor Report dated 24.03.2012 driver Priyanshu made a statement before Survey Report that he was a driver of Ramesh Yadav and who was driving at the time of accident on 23.02.2012 but complainant mislead by misrepresenting that Priyanshu was her own relative. Complainant held that she had sold the vehicleon 21/03/2012,whereas Ramesh yadav admitted that he purchased the car from complainant on 18/02/2012 where he stated that she has sold the vehicle on 18.02.2012 to Ramesh Yadav (that is 6 days prior to accident) for a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/-. Further driver in his statement admitted that he was Ramesh Yadav’s driver and not of complainant and Ramesh Yadav admits being purchased the vehicle from complainant on 16.02.2012 and Priyanshu being his driver. Accidental repair cost is Rs. 1,77,960/- from concept Automobiles vide Invoice dated 02.05.2012.Car sent by complainant for repairs on 25.02.2012. as per survey report net assessment amount is Rs. 1,20,467/- by surveyor after deducting surcharge depreciation and compulsory excess as per Survey report dated 01.03.2012. but since complainant was not having insurable interest as on dated of accident as per her own admission, sale proceeds were accepted on 18.02.2012 further corroborate by Ramesh Yadav statement dated 16.03.2012.  hence claim stands repudiated by OP. According to OP, the breach of a condition or non-compliance with any provision of the insurance policy disentitles the insured to make any claim under the policy.

58.   We are guided by the Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. &Ors. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 & in D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2012) C.P.J. 272 (NC) and In Garg Acrylics Ltd., Through Sh. Anish Bansal G.M. (G.M.) Authorised Representative vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 (1) CPR 273 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus:-

" This is settled Law that the report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage than any other piece of evidence."

59.   The Surveyor's Report is a reliable document and the complainant has not filed any document to prove that the Surveyor's report is doubtful, therefore, the Surveyor's Report is dependable for assessment of loss, and according to the Surveyor's Report, the complainant is not entitled to any amount.

60.   In view of case laws mentioned it is settled position that in the case of Own-Damage policies, there was no deemed transfer of policy in the name of the purchaser of the vehicle, and it was obligatory on a purchaser to get the policy transferred in his name, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim in the absence of insurable interest on the part of the complainant.

61.   In view of the ratio laid down in above referred judgments as well as law discussed above, the complainant was not the owner on the date of incident and theinsurance policy was not in existence at the time of accident therefore, the consumer has no insurable interest. Apart from this insurance claim is not payable due to non compliance of Section 50 and 157 of M V Act as well as GR 17 of Indian Tariff Act. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation.

62.   Having perused the material on record we are of the opinion that ex-facie the complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainant had no insurable interest But she came to the court with unclean hands therefore we dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs 5,000/- imposed on complainant to be deposited with CLA  for lying on oath before court of law regarding identity of driver as well as concealment and misrepresentation of fact and date of sale of subject vehicle.

63.   In view of the aforesaid discussions, done and legal position explained we are of the considered view that there exists no infirmity in the repudiation letter dated 10.04.2012 and direct the complainant to reply with this order within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.

64.   Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

65.   File be consigned to record room.  Announced in Open Court on 31.10.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Richa Jindal)    Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)         Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)             President