DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 26/08/2020
CC/97/2020
Blessy Davies,
W/o Vijaykumar,
“Mappanath House”, Dhoni P.O.,
Palakkad - 678009
(By Adv. Athira S.) - Complainant
Vs
1. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager
Branch Office, P.B. No. 12, D - Block,
1st Floor, Pazheri Plaza,
Kodathippadi, Mannarkkad – 678582
2. Joji John - Opposite parties S/o John Joseph,
Vilavinal Asheervadh,
32/2611, NH, Palarivattom
Ernakulam – 682025.
(O.P.1 by Adv.P.Ratnavally
O.P.2 is Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. Pleadings, both of the complainant and the opposite parties are the same and unrebutted till the finale.
The complainant purchased a car from the 2nd opposite party on 15/09/2015 (as can be seen from the certificate of registration produced alongwith the complaint), while it was insured with the 1st opposite party. During the subsistence of the said policy, and after the purchase from the 2nd opposite party, the car met with an accident on 4/11/2015. Upon the complainant raising an Own Damage claim, the 1st opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the owner and the insured person are two different persons.
The crux of the dispute is the legality of the repudiation of the transferee’s claim whose name does not figure in the policy document.
2. Considering the pleadings, a preliminary issue was raised regarding maintainability based on the decision rendered by the honourable Supreme Court in Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 221.
3. The car originally belonged to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had availed an insurance policy from the 1st opposite party. Accident occurred while there was a subsisting policy, albeit in the name of the transferor. The 1st opposite party repudiated the claim the complainant. Complainant averred that since it was the car that was insured and not the person, the transfer of ownership did not affect the validity of the insurance coverage.
4. However tempting this plea of the complainant be, Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act cast a liability on the transferee of the vehicle to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour. The various decisions rendered by the National Commission as well as the Supreme Court with regard to claim of Own Damage has upheld this section and held a view contrary to the stand adopted by the complainant
5. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid decision that an own damage policy being contractual in nature, and when the subsequent purchaser has not got the policy transferred in his name, the insurance company is not under obligation to indemnify the subsequent purchaser. This decision was followed by the Honourbale NCDRC in National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Jai Bhagawan (RP 118/2013)
That being so, claim of the complainant is legally unsustainable. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1.
Hence, complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of February, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V.
President
Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
