Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 7/3/2012 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2010, Mr. Santosh Sahadeo Wadekar and Another Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., whereby the consumer complaint stood dismissed. One of the original Complainants, Suhas B. Gawali preferred this appeal showing other Complainant, Santosh Wadekar alongwith the Insurance Company as the Respondents. An affidavit filed by the Appellant, Suhas B. Gawali submits that since he had already sold the insured vehicle to the Respondent No.2/original Complainant No.1, Santosh Wadekar the compensation, if awarded, may be directed to be paid to said Santosh Wadekar.
[2] Undisputed facts are that the insured vehicle which was stolen on 16/7/2008 was belonging to the Appellant/Complainant, Suhas B. Gawali which he sold for `2,10,000/- on 13/6/2008 to the Respondent No.2/Complainant No.1, Santosh Wadekar. After the theft of the insured vehicle a police complaint was filed. However, the police found the incident of theft true but could not trace the culprit and, therefore, filed ‘A’ Summary. Insurance claim was made but, since it was repudiated on 26/9/2008 by the Respondent No.1, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity), a consumer complaint was filed. The Forum came to a conclusion that in absence of any evidence about the change of ownership given to the Insurance Company, the repudiation cannot be faulted with and dismissed the consumer complaint.
[3] Heard Adv. Uday B. Wavikar on behalf of the Appellant. Respondent Insurance Company preferred to remain absent though duly served (as per India Post report on 19/10/2012) and as such, the appeal is heard in its absence.
[4] The sale is witness by the delivery note dated 13/6/2008 and it being a movable property, the sale transaction was complete on delivery of the possession. In the instant case, question arises about the liability of the Insurance Company once the insured vehicle was transferred by sale transaction in between the Complainants. This issue is already covered by this Commission’s decision in First Appeal No.1256 of 2010, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sou. Kasturi J. Patil decided on 3/5/2012 (Quorum Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, the President and Mr. Narendra Kawde, the Member). Said decision covers relevant GR.17 which reads as under:-
“On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has 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 the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.”
[5] The Forum also referred to said GR. 17 but did not consider the same in its right perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Insured vehicle, in view of GR.17, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the buyer (of the insured vehicle) and as such, it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to stand by said GR.17 as applicable to it. Since the change of name of the insured in the insurance policy is only a ministerial act, it will not affect substantial right of the buyer of the insured vehicle to claim benefit under the insurance policy even as a ‘beneficial consumer’. In the circumstances, we hold accordingly.
[6] Coming to the compensation to be awarded and after taking into consideration that theft of the insured vehicle is a case of total loss and the fact that only a few days prior to the theft the same was sold on 13/6/2008 to the Respondent No.2/Complainant No.1 Mr. Santosh Wadekar for `2,10,000/- which is less than the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of `5,59,460/-, we find it just and proper to settle the amount of compensation at `2,10,000/-.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 07th March, 2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2010 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint is partly allowed.
Respondent No.1/original Opponent ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., is hereby directed to pay to Respondent No.2/original Complainant No.1 Mr. Santosh Wadekar an amount of `2,10,000/- for and on behalf of the Insured within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of this order and failing which said amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., till its realization.
In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 14th December, 2012
