08-10-2015 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose –vs- M. Aby & ors.

2. Heard the parties.

3. On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 44 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

4. The case of the complainant in short is as follows. It was owner of Mahindra Bolero Vehicle No. OR-09-D-4701 which was insured with the O.P. – appellant (Insurance Company for short) with effect from 26.04.2007 to 25.04.2008 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It transferred the vehicle to one Mr. Nishant Ranjan on 02.04.2007, but the vehicle was stolen in the night between 11/12.05.2007 for which Mr. Nishant Ranjan lodged FIR on 12.05.2007 under Section 379/34 against unknown. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet as occurrence true but no clue. Mr. Nishant Ranjan lodged a claim before the Insurance Company on behalf of the complainant. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim by it’s letter dated 12.05.2008 on the ground that ownership of the vehicle was not transferred within 14 days. Then the complainant lodged a claim on 10.06.2008 followed by reminder dated 28.06.2008 for the insurance money, on the ground that it is still the owner of the vehicle but the Insurance Company did not pay any heed and therefore the present complaint case was filed, claiming the insured amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 12.05.2007.

5. The case of the Insurance Company in short is as follows. The complaint was not maintainable; there was no valid cause of action; the case was barred by limitation; the case was bad for non-joinder of Mr. Nishant Ranjan and the National Insurance Company; the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction unless ownership of the vehicle while decided by competent Civil Court; the complainant was not a consumer of the Insurance Company; and the complainant could file M.V. claim before the tribunal. The Complainant sold the vehicle to Mr. Nishant Ranjan on payment of full consideration of Rs. 1,65,000/- on 02.04.2007. The sale letter was sent to the DTO, Chaibasa for transfer of ownership. The vehicle was not in the custody of the complainant at the time of alleged theft nor it was the owner of the vehicle. Thus the complainant was defecto owner and not the real owner and was not entitled to get insurance money.

The claim made by Mr. Nishant Ranjan was repudiated as he did not apply for fresh insurance certificate within 14 days, from the date of transfer. The vehicle was first insured with National Insurance Company with effect from 04.04.2007 to 27.12.2007. Thus, there were two insurance policies for one vehicle at the time of alleged theft. After repudiation of the claim of Nishant Ranjan, the claim of the complainant was baseless.

6. The learned District Forum, after hearing the parties directed the Insurance Company to pay the insured amount i.e. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 01.12.2007 i.e. after six months of lodging first claim of insurance, till final payment along with Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the order.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company reiterated the aforesaid contentions raised by it before learned District Forum. The judgments reported in I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC) Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and (1996) I SCC 221 Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. were relied. It was also submitted that in any event the order of interest is not justified.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - complainant supported the impugned judgment. He also submitted that the vehicle was registered in Orissa and therefore the transfer of ownership could be done up to 45 days as per section 50(1)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act and only after transfer of ownership, transfer of insurance could take place.

The vehicle was stolen on 12.05.2007 i.e. within 45 days of the date of transfer i.e. 02.04.2007 and therefore the Insurance Company is wrong in saying that the ownership and the insurance was to be transferred within 14 days, which was applicable in a case of transfer of ownership within State. He relied on judgment reported in I (2013) CPJ 664 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh.

9. After hearing the parties and going through the materials placed, the following position emerges. The complainant transferred the vehicle in question to Mr. Nishant Ranjan on 02.04.2007 and sent letter to the DTO, Chaibasa with a copy to Mr. Nishant Ranjan and National Insurance Company. The vehicle was stolen on 11/12.05.2007, about which police was informed on 12.05.2007 by Nishant Ranjan. Police submitted charge-sheet as occurrence true but no clue, which was accepted by CJM, Chaibasa. Mr. Nishant Ranjan lodged insurance claim which was repudiated by letter dated 12.05.2008 on the ground that the ownership was not transferred within 14 days. In other words the Insurance Company accepted the complainant as owner of the vehicle, but on the other hand, it denied the claim of the complainant on the ground that after transfer of the vehicle, it was not the owner. Thus, the Insurance Company blew hot and cold at the same time.

10. It further appears that by an affidavit sworn on 15.07.2011, Mr. Nishant Ranjan declared that the complainant was registered owner and he would not claim insurance money, if paid to the complainant. It may also be noted that though the transfer of vehicle took place within this State but the vehicle in question was registered in another State i.e. Orissa. As per Section 50(1)(a)(ii) of Motor Vehicle Act, in such case, the time limit for transfer of ownership is 45 days, but within 45 days the vehicle was stolen. Thus, the ownership could not be transferred, and accordingly, the insurance also could not be transferred. After Mr. Nishant Ranjan disowned his ownership, there was no dispute with regard to ownership of the vehicle. It also appears that on the request of the complainant the insurance of the vehicle with the National Insurance Company was cancelled with effect from 04.04.2007 i.e. prior to the theft of the vehicle on 11/12.05.2007. Thus the vehicle was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company only, at relevant time. In such circumstances, there was no need to make Mr. Nishant Ranjan and the National Insurance Company party in the present case. The judgments relied by the Insurance Company are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed above. Rather the judgment relied on behalf of the complainant supports it’s case.

11. After carefully considering the entire matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

12. However, the operative portion of the impugned judgment is modified to the following extent. The Insurance Company will pay the insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent along with Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation within 45 days of this order, failing which, the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the said amounts along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment/realization.

    With these modifications, this appeal stands disposed off.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 08-10-2015