The revision-petitioner –Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. has challenged the order of Rajasthan /State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 1632/2011. The petition has been filed with delay of 20 days. Considering the explanation in the application, the same is condoned.
2. The matter in the present proceedings concern an insured vehicle which was sold by the registered owner to the complainant/respondent. The registration of this vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 03.09.2010 and on 05.09.2010 the vehicle was reportedly stolen. This theft was reported to the Police as well as the RP/Insurance Company. The claim was however, repudiated by RP/OP on the following ground:
“On scrutiny of documents submitted by your good self, it is observed that at the material time of theft of the vehicle, the ownership of the insurance policy was in the name. Mr. Akbar Khan, the same is not in your name hence you have no insurance contract with us.
Please note that as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist insurable contract at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss, in this particular claim the same was not in position. In the circumstances, we are not liable under the policy terms and conditions in respect of the above loss.
In view of the aforesaid your claim stands repudiated due to violation of our policy terms and conditions.”
3. The consumer complaint filed against this repudiation of the claim was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 8.80 lacs with interest and cost. While doing so, the District Forum has observed that:
“The complainant has submitted copies of FIR, vehicle registration certificate, Insurance Policy, FR and acceptance order of FR and the opponent insurance company filed the copies of the agreement of the sale of the vehicle, surveyor report dated 22.02.2010 and claim rejection letter of the insurance company. The complainant got the registration of the vehicle changed in his name on 0.09.2010 and the above vehicle was stolen on 05.09.2010. According to the claimant information about the theft was given to the opponent company without delay. The main objection of the opponent Insurance Company has been that the claimant has not got the name change in insurance policy within 14 days from the date of change I registration and the claimant has no right for any claim. But because the theft of the vehicle occurred on 05.09.2010 night after 2 days of the date of change of registration dated 03.09.2010, he could not have any time of 14 days for getting the vehicle changed in his name in the insurance policy. Due to these reasons it cannot be agreed that knowingly he has breached the terms of the insurance policy for not getting the name changed in insurance policy within 14 days of the change in registration. During arguments the learned counsel of the opponent insurance company cited of the judgments:
(1)2010 DNJ (CC) 20, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 4387/2009, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Kanta Bhujang Rao and (2) Revision Petition No. 221/2006 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, Dharmender Nath Thakur & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. are not applicable in the present case being different as the vehicle was stolen within two days of the transfer dated 03.09.2010 in favour of complainant and thus he could not get the prescribed time for getting the name changed in the policy. As the vehicle was transferred in the name of the claimant on 03.09.2010 prior to the theft occurred in the night of 05.09.2010, opponent has made deficiency in service by rejecting the insurance claim of the claimant.”
4. While the District Forum had awarded the full IDV to the complainant, the State Commission reduced the award to 75%, i.e. limiting it to a non-standard claim. While doing so, the State Commission has observed:
“In the present case point of disputes only that the insurance of the vehicle was in the name of Akbar Khan on the date of its stolen. Whereas the complainant had purchased the said vehicle on 28.8.2010 and the complainant wanted to get transferred the insurance policy in her name but she did not get sufficient time and the vehicle was stolen. The Respondent insurance co. had issued the insurance policy for the period from 15.09.2009 to 14.09.2010 and insured the said vehicle at Rs. 8,80,000/- and received the premium. Whereas the insurance of the said vehicle had not transferred in the name of the complainant. But it is clear from the aforesaid reason that the complainant had duly informed the Respondent Insurance Co. regarding transfer of the said vehicle in her name within 14 days. There is no any error on her part regarding transfer of insurance in her name within prescribed period. In this regard Hon’ble Supreme Court’s citation IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neetin Khandelwal is very important in which it is decided that on the basis of breach of general contract in the conditions of insurance contract dismissal of entire claim is the error of insurance co. Learned Subordinate District Forum has ordered to pay the total amount of insured sum which is partly amended. Hence 75% Rs. 6,60,000/- of insured sum of Rs. 8,80,000/- on the basis of sub-standard is proper to make payment.”
5. The case of the revision-petitioner needs to be appreciated in the light of the conclusion reached above by the District Forum and the State Commission. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, Mr. Khalid Arshad argued that the present case is to be governed by the provisions of GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. In the event of transfer of ownership of a vehicle the liability of the insurer under the policy is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee of the vehicle with effect from the date of the transfer, provided the transferee applies for the same to the insurer within 14 days from the date of the transfer. He argued that after the theft of the vehicle, which was within two days’ of transfer of ownership in the registration certificate, the complainant could no longer have applied for its insurance. 6. We find an inherent fallacy in this logic. It ignores the fact that on the day the vehicle was stolen, the complainant was its registered owner. Secondly, GR-17 which has been relied upon by the revision-petitioner, itself allows a period of 14 days to apply for transfer of the insurance policy. In other words, the complainant had a right to seek the transfer of insurance, for which the prescribed time limit had just begun to run. To put the things in their true perspective, it is true that on the date of loss, the policy did not stand in the name of the complainant but it is equally true that the applicable rule (GR-17) allowed him time of 14 days from 03.09.2010 to seek it.
7. The petitioner has also sought to rely upon the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3802 of 2011 in the case of Rameshbhai Thakorbhai Prajapati Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. pronounced on 04.10.2012. In that case, the vehicle was purchased on 31.5.2007 and was stolen on 22.10.2007. The repudiation of the claim on the ground that the insurance company was not informed within a period of 14 days from the change of ownership was upheld. The facts in the present case are different as the theft of the vehicle has taken place within the permissible period of 14 days from the change of ownership. Therefore, in our view, the revision petition can derive no support from this decision. Similarly, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Goli Sridhar in R.P. No. 2964 of 2007 decided on 22.11.2011, this Commission had dismissed the complaint, setting aside the order of the fora below where the claim under the insurance policy had been held to be valid. A perusal of the facts shows that the vehicle was purchased on 08.3.2004 and it was stolen on 05.9.2004 i.e. well beyond the permissible period of 14 days under GR-17. Therefore, even this decision can offer no support to the cause of the present revision-petitioner.
8. We therefore, do not find anything in the revision petition which could justify our intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed for want of merit with no order as to costs.
| 
