Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only),vide which it accepted the complaint of Complainant No.1(now respondent No.1) and directed the OP (now appellant) to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,91,000/- to complainant No.1 alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2500/- to each complainant. It was also directed that the OP shall make payment of the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it was directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 4.5.2010 till its actual payment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant No.2 purchased the vehicle from complainant No.1 on 28.4.2009. As the insurance was to expire on 5.5.2009 and the required documents for transfer of the vehicle were yet to be procured, complainant No.2 paid the premium through cheque from her own account and got the vehicle insured. Since the vehicle was in the name of complainant No.1, accordingly, the insurance Policy was issued in his name, but the address of complainant No.2 was also mentioned. It was stated that the State Transport Authority issued ‘no objection certificate’ on 26.5.2009 only. Unfortunately, on 20.6.2009, the vehicle caught fire while it was being driven and was totally destroyed. After informing the OP, complainant No.2, took the vehicle to the authorized service station which prepared estimate of Rs.4,33,039/- and charged Rs.6,000/- for the estimate. Complainant No.1 lodged the insurance claim as the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,95,000/- which was much less than the estimate, but the OP did not inform the fate of the claim. A letter dated 4.1.2010 to the OP was written, in reply thereto, a letter dated 11.1.2010 was received asking complainant No.2 to clarify her position about the ownership. Vide letter dated 19.1.2010, complainant NO.2 clarified the position, but the OP vide its letter dated 19.2.2010 repudiated the claim, on the ground, that complainant No.2 had no insurable interest, as the vehicle stood in the name of complainant No.1. It was further stated that these acts of the OP amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. 3. The OP, in its written reply, stated that complainant No.2 purchased the vehicle from complainant No.1 on 19.4.2009 and not on 28.4.2009. It was admitted that the insurance policy was issued in the name of complainant No.1, which was valid from 5.5.2009 to 4.5.2010. It was stated that complainant No.2 did not apply to the Registering Authority for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, though, no objection was received by her on 26.5.2009 and the accident took place on 20.6.2009, which amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further stated that the surveyor appointed by the OP assessed the loss on repair basis at Rs.2,30,500/- and on total loss basis at Rs.1,39,000/- and gave the detailed report. It was further stated that the OP rightly repudiated the claim as complainant NO.2 had no insurable interest in the vehicle. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The Parties led evidence. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that since the vehicle had not yet been registered in favour of complainant No.2, and the Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy were in the name of complainant No.1, who had insurable interest,and, as such, repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company of complainant No.1 was wrong. Ultimately, the complaint was accepted in favour of complainant No.1, in the manner, stated in the opening para of the Order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/ OP. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, since the vehicle had been purchased by complainant no.2, he was required to apply as per GR.17 within 14 days from the date of transfer, in writing to the Insurer who had 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 necessary changes, in the record, and issue fresh Certificate of insurance. He further submitted that complainant No.2 did not apply for the transfer of said vehicle, in his name, after the vehicle was sold in his favour, and, as such, he had no insurable interest. He further submitted that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. He also placed reliance on Dharmendra Nath Thakur Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1)CPC 574, in support of his contention. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the vehicle, in question, was registered in the name of Deepak Dwivedi complainant No.1/respondent NO.1. The Registration Certificate had not been transferred, in favour of complainant NO.2/respondent No.2, by the time, it met with an accident. It was only after transfer of the registration certificate, in favour of complainant NO.2/respondent No.2, that any intimation could be given to the Insurance Company, for making endorsement, in his name. Since, registration certificate was, in the name of complainant No.1/respondent No.1 and the insurance policy was also admittedly issued, in his favour, after obtaining premium by the Insurance Company, when the vehicle met with an accident, and the claim was filed with the Insurance Company, it could not repudiate his claim. Had complainant NO.1 not filed the complaint and only complainant No.2 filed the complaint, the matter would have been different. The repudiation of claim was made by the Insurance Company, only on the ground, that there was no privity of contract between it, and complainant No.2. Since the Policy was in the name of complainant No.1, it could be said that the insurance premium was also paid by him. The repudiation of claim of complainant NO.1/respondent NO.1, by the Insurance Company was, therefore, completely unjustified and arbitrary. In Jai Pal Singh and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and Another, I (2007), CPJ 423, the principle of law, laid down, was that where registration certificate and insurance policy had not been transferred, in the name of the transferee, he could not claim compensation, from the Insurer. It was further held that since the purchaser of the vehicle had no privity of contract with the Insurance Company, the claim could be made by the original owner and policy holder alone. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shrawan Bhati, Appeal No. 1223/2007, decided by the Rajasthan State Commission on 01.11.2007, it was held that the Insurance Company was to indemnify the loss of vehicle of the Complainant/ Respondent, as it was insured in his name, and not in the name of ‘B’ purchaser, who had no privity of contract, with the Insurance Company. In Banowarilal Agrawalla Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, reported in S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) page 241, in similar circumstances, vehicle owned by ‘A’ was sold to ‘B’, but ‘B’ had not made effort to get the insurance policy transferred, in his favour. It was held that, if the accident occurred within the policy period, ‘A’ will have a locus standi, to file the claim, and not the purchaser. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, the District Forum was right in holding that since complainant No.1 had insurable interest, and privity of contract with the Insurance Company, he had every right to claim compensation, on account of damage to the vehicle in the accident. The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed. 10. The provisions of GR.17 regarding transfer, relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the instant case, as the compensation was not granted, in favour of complainant NO.2, in whose name the vehicle was not registered, nor he had insurable interest, nor had privity of contract with the Insurance Company. Even the facts of Dharmendra Nath Thakur’s case (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In Dharmendra Nath Thakur’s case (supra), the petitioner who had applied for transfer of the registration certificate, in his favour, and got the registration certificate entered, in his name, did not take steps to get the insurance transferred in his name, which continued in the name of his brother, the previous owner. It was, under these circumstances, held by the National Commission that since the insurance policy had not been transferred, in the name of the purchaser, he had no insurable interest, and, as such, was not entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle, in the absence of specific contract with the insurer covering the risk for damage to the vehicle. No help, therefore, can be drawn, from the principle of law, laid down, in this case, by the Counsel for the appellant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is rejected. 11. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to the record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
