Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Complainant purchased a ‘Qualis’ vehicle from the Opposite Party No.3 herein, by name – Mr. Santosh Sarjerao Jadhav; on borrowing a loan from the Opposite Party No.2 – Bank; and the vehicle in question was insured with the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company. [2] It is the case of the Complainant that the insured vehicle was parked near his residence and in the connecting night of 4th & 5th July, 2006; the insured vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons. The Complainant lodged a F.I.R. with Vikhroli Police Station on 6/7/2006. However, the insured vehicle could not be traced out. [3] In the meantime, the Complainant lodged an insurance claim with the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; admitted transfer of vehicle, but the claim came to be repudiated, vide a letter dtd.29/12/2006, on the ground that insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the Complainant and on the date of incident of theft of the insured vehicle, the insurance policy stood in the name of the Opposite Party No.3 – the original owner. [4] Being aggrieved by that repudiation, the Complainant filed present complaint before this Forum on 5/5/2007, seeking direction, as against the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; to pay him compensation as per the insurance policy. [5] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and took stand that even though the insured vehicle was transferred in the name of the Complainant, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the Complainant and as such, the Complainant was not entitled to the benefits under the insurance policy. The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; relied upon a Supreme Court decision in support of that stand. [6] The Opposite Party No.2 – Bank; filed its separate written version of defence, but the contentions raised by the Opposite Party No.2 – Bank; are not germane for the purpose of adjudication of present consumer complaint. [7] Mr. Santosh Sarjerao Jadhav – the Opposite Party No.3 herein; who was the original owner of the insured vehicle, supported the complaint and gave his unconditional consent for payment of insurance claim to the Complainant. [8] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Parties. Parties to the complaint proceeding have also filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant documents. The Complainant as well as the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; also filed their respective written notes of arguments. [9] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the parties. [10] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; is guilty of deficiency in service on account of repudiation of the claim of the Complainant? | YES | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to direction, as against the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; to settle his insurance claim? | YES | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [11] Alongwith the compilation of the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record a copy of R. C. Book and the entries therein reveal that the insured vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the Complainant on 15/6/2006. A copy of F.I.R. dtd.6/7/2006, lodged by the Complainant with Vikhroli Police Station, supports the averments in the complaint that insured vehicle was parked near the residence of the Complainant and in the connecting night of 4th & 5th July, 2006; the insured vehicle was stolen. On investigation, the concerned police authorities of Vikhroli Police Station filed ‘A’ summary before the Magistrate stating thereunder that incident of theft of insured vehicle was true, but the same could not be traced out. A copy of insurance policy is produced on the record by the Complainant, which shows that it was in the name of the original owner, by name – Mr. Santosh Sarjerao Jadhav; who has been impleaded in the present complaint proceeding as the Opposite Party No.3; and the said insurance policy was valid till 3/11/2006. The Complainant had moved the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; and from the repudiation letter dtd.29/12/2006, it is seen that the insurance policy was transferred in the name of the Complainant on 7/7/2006 i.e. after lapse of a period of two days from the incident of theft of the insured vehicle. This shows that within stipulated period of 14 days from the transfer of vehicle in his name, the Complainant had moved the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; for transfer of insurance policy in his name. The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; repudiated the Complainant’s claim on the sole ground that though the Complainant was having insurable interest in the insured vehicle, the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the Complainant and it was in the name of Mr. Santosh Jadhav – the Opposite Party No.3 herein; who was the original owner of the insured vehicle. [12] The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; in its written notes of arguments, has highlighted this fact and has referred to provisions contained in Section-157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and has raised a contention to the effect that transferee of the insured vehicle could avail the benefit of the insurance policy only after transfer of insurance policy in his name and till then, only a third party can avail the benefit. The transferee not being a third party, he would not get the benefit of the insurance policy during the interregnum period. In support of this contention, the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ~ 1996-ACJ-65; in which Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court extensively discussed provisions contained in Section-157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As against this, the Complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.556 of 2002 (In the matters of Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.), decided on 22/5/2007. In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission referred to a circular issued by the General Insurance Company in the year 1994, which subsequently became a regulation and part of Indian Motor Tariff Regulations. Hon’ble National Commission reproduced the said regulation, which lays down that on transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The Hon’ble National Commission also deprecated the policy adopted by the insurance companies in suppressing this resolution and raising contention to the effect that the transferee of the insured vehicle was not entitled to protection of the insurance policy on the ground that insurance policy was not transferred in his name. Hon’ble National Commission also referred to earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were cited by the Respondent/Insurance Company therein and had given direction to the learned advocate for the Respondent/ Insurance Company therein to file a clarificatory affidavit about the regulation referred to here-in-above. Such affidavit was not filed. Since, the said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission is based upon subsequent regulation; we prefer to rely upon this decision of the Hon’ble National Commission than the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred supra, relied upon by the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company. In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission not only referred to the regulation, but gave warning to the insurance companies in taking a stand contrary to the regulation framed by the Indian Motor Tariff and Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA). [13] Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that insurance runs with the vehicle and it is the vehicle, which is insured under the policy and not the individual owner. Therefore, in the present case, on transfer of the insured vehicle in the name of the Complainant, it will have to be presumed that by deeming fiction, insurance policy also came to be transferred in the name of the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant was entitled to protection under the insurance policy and the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; was not justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, we hold the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; guilty of deficiency in service. [14] In the prayer clause of the complaint application as filed, the Complainant has not claimed any particular amount, but he has sought direction, as against the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; to pay the amount towards insurance claim together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. We propose to direct the Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; to settle claim of the Complainant, as per the sum assured under the insurance policy, together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from the date of repudiation i.e. 29/12/2006 till realization of entire amount by the Complainant. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; is hereby directed to settle claim of the Complainant, as per the sum assured under the insurance policy, together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from the date of repudiation i.e. 29/Dec/2006 till realization of entire amount by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; shall also pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The Opposite Party No.1 – Insurance Company; is hereby directed to comply with the foregoing order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the claims of the Complainant, stands rejected. The complaint, as against the Opposite Parties Nos.2 & 3, stands dismissed. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
