APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  3^rd  May  2018

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 03.12.2014, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1077/2014, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Khatri, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 29.09.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat in Consumer Complaint No. 323/2012, filed by the present respondent, Dr. Manoj Kumar Khatri, partly allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed the consumer complaint no. 323/2012, stating that he was owner of a TVS motorcycle, bearing registration no. HR42A 7312, which was insured with the petitioner, Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 06.07.2010 to 05.07.2011, vide cover note no. 579206 dated 05.07.2010.  It has been stated in the consumer complaint itself that the said vehicle was sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar son of Satbir Singh, resident of Sonepat, but before the change of name could be affected in the record, the said vehicle got stolen, for which FIR No. 261 dated 08.07.2010 had been registered at the Police Station City, Sonepat.  The factum of theft was informed to the Insurance Company and claim was filed with them alongwith the necessary documents, but the said claim was repudiated by the petitioner Insurance Company on the ground that on the date of the incident, the vehicle stood sold to the said Satish Kumar, and hence, the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the said vehicle and was not entitled for the claim.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the petitioner Insurance Company to pay him the insured amount as per the policy alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment etc.  

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Insurance Company by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which they stated that the vehicle had been sold by the complainant to Satish Kumar much before the incident of theft and it was sold further by Satish Kumar to Goldy, although the insurance policy stood in the name of the original owner.  The complainant had, therefore, no locus-standi to get the claim under the policy.

4.      The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint, saying that as per the registration certificate, the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle and hence, a direction was given to the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 52,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant was also directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the Insurance Company.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of appeal no. 1077/2014 before the State Commission.  The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner Insurance Company is before this commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.      The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent/complainant to put in appearance in proceedings in the revision petition, but the complainant did not appear, even after due service of the notice and hence, was proceeded against ex-parte.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated during arguments  that since  the complainant  had no insurable interest left in the vehicle after sale of the same to Satish Kumar, the Insurance  Company  was not liable to make payment of  the claim in question.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to copy of the FIR, placed on record, saying that the said FIR had been lodged by the purchaser Satish Kumar.  Moreover, a copy of a document titled ‘delivery cum receipt’  had been produced on record, as  per  which, the said vehicle was sold by  Rohit  son of the complainant to Satish Kumar on 22.02.2010 for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-.  In  the copy of the Motor Insurance Claim Form,  placed on record, Goldy has been stated to be the owner of the vehicle.  Further, a letter dated 14.08.2010, signed by Goldy, addressed to the petitioner Insurance Company has been placed on record, in which, it has been categorically stated that Goldy had purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 47,000/- from Satish Kumar.  The learned counsel  has  further drawn  attention to GR-17 of the Motor Vehicle Regulations, saying that the transfer of ownership is supposed  to have taken place from the date of the sale, in the case of own damage claims.  The transfer of ownership in the registration certificate etc. is done only to keep the record up-to-date.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order, passed by this 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.

7.      We  have examined  the entire  material on  record and  given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.      A perusal of the documents on record makes it very clear that the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant Dr. Manoj Kumar Khatri or his son to Satish Kumar and it was further sold by Satish Kumar to Goldy.  The categorical statement of Goldy, made to the petitioner Company has not been controverted on record by any document.  On the other hand, a document signed by the son of the complainant says that the vehicle was sold to Satish Kumar on 22.02.2010 for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-.  In the complaint itself, the complainant stated that the vehicle had already been sold to Satish Kumar before the theft took place.  It is clear from these facts that on the date of theft of the vehicle, the complainant did not have insurable interest in the said vehicle and hence, the consumer fora below have taken an erroneous view that the complainant was entitled to get the claim under the insurance policy.

9.      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 owner of the vehicle, when the theft took place.  The matter has already been considered by this Commission in a number of cases, decided already.  It has been stated in the order passed in Revision Petition No. 3216/2015, Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sombir, as follows:-

“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.  As stated by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh “Madineni Kondaiah and Ors. vs. Yaseen Fatima & Ors.” [supra], 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.

10.    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 alongwith 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 the matter, as he had already sold the vehicle to Satish Kumar.  It was the duty of the purchasers to get the insurance policy transferred in their name after the said sale, and also to get the registration transferred in their name.  However, on their failure to do so, the original owner is not at all entitled to get the claim, as he is not left with any insurable interest in the vehicle, after the admitted sale of the same.  The petitioner Insurance Company is, therefore, well within its rights to repudiate the claim, and they have rightly done so.

11.     In the light of the discussion above, it is evident that the orders passed by both the consumer fora below are perverse in the eyes of law and the same are ordered to be set aside.  The present revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed.  There shall be no order
as to costs.