(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)

(1)               This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 02/12/2010 in Consumer Complaint No.379/2007 (Ashok Laxman Mane Vs. 1. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors.), passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai (‘District Forum’ in short).  The consumer complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum and directions were issued to the appellant/opponent insurance company to pay sum assured under the insurance policy together with interest thereon @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 29/12/2006 till the realization of the amount.  Ancillary relief of `5,000/- towards costs of litigation was also awarded.  All these amounts were directed to be paid within 8 weeks from the receipt of impugned order.  The consumer complaint dismissed against the original opponent no.2 & 3.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the original appellant/opponent no.1 (insurance company) preferred this appeal stating the grounds that the provisions of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 were not appreciated by the District Forum and so also rules laid down by IRDA, more particularly, in respect of Indian Motor Tarrif Rule GR No.17.  The insurance company further relied upon the law laid down in 1989 ACJ 114.

(2)               Heard the parties present.  Perused the record placed before us.  Undisputed facts are that the motor vehicle bearing No. MH 02 MA 2422 owned by the respondent no.1/complainant was insured with the appellant/opponent no.1 insurance company with insured declared value for `4,60,000/-.  During the validity period of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen away.  FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  However, the vehicle could not be traced and investigation was closed by filing ‘A’ summary to the concerned Judicial Magistrate.  Simultaneously, the theft was reported by the respondent/complainant to the insurance company and filed claim for settlement of insurance policy.  However, the repudiated the claim taking recourse that though insured vehicle was transferred in the books of RTO changing the ownership, yet the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of present owner and therefore for want of insurable interest in the insured property, the claim was repudiated.  Aggrieved by repudiation, the consumer complaint was filed which was decided awarding the compensation summarized in para No.1, supra. 

(3)               The learned advocate of the no.1 insurance company submitted that provisions in Sec.157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 were not complied with, in respect of transfer of the insurance company in the name of the complainant as the complainant did not comply with the transfer of the said policy within the period of 14 days from the date of ownership of the vehicle.  However, the learned advocate could not explain the deemed effect of transfer of the insurance policy in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. the date of its transfer as envisaged in the Sec.157 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  relied upon by the insurance company in the matter of AIR (1996) SC 586 is not relevant as the stipulations u/s. 157(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 nowhere refer to the third party risk. 

(4)               It is the contention of the learned advocate of the respondent no.1 that the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of - Narayansingh vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 22/05/2007 refers to the circular issued by General Insurance Company in the year 1994 and held that on transfer of the vehicle the benefit under the insurance policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner.  This State Commission also has taken a consistent view that on transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, the insurance policy of vehicle is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. the date of transfer of vehicle and provision to intimate within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing to the insurer for transfer of the policy is mere ministerial work (United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kasturi Patil - FA/10/1256 dated 30/05/2012).  Moreover, it is to be understood that it is the vehicle and not the transferee of vehicle is insured.

(5)             In view of the position explained, the arguments of the learned advocate of the insurance company are not sustainable in law.  Therefore, we do not agree with his arguments.  It is barely to be understood that it is the vehicle i.e. insured and not the person.  In the case on hand, it is the case of total loss of the vehicle since it is stolen away and not traced.  In view of the settled position explained above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal has been filed only to protract the litigation adversely affecting the complainant in not getting the benefit payable under the insurance policy.  The District Forum has appropriately considered the consumer complaint and arrived at the right conclusion to hold deficiency in service against the insurance company for arbitrary repudiation and awarded the amount payable as insurance claim explained in the para no.1, supra.  Well reasoned impugned order passed by the District Forum does not invite interference of this Commission.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

(1)      The appeal stands dismissed.

(2)      The impugned order dated 02/12/2010 in Consumer                             Complaint    No.379/2007 passed by Mumbai Suburban                      District Consumer    Disputes      Redressal Forum at                            Mumbai is hereby confirmed.

(3)      No order as to costs.

(4)      Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced on 03th July,2013.