KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.416/09 JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER P. Suresh, Sreenilayam, Neerkunnam, Aleppy. 2. Smt.K.Gowrikutty Amma, -- APPELLANTS Sreenilayam, Neerkunnam, Aleppy. Vs. 1. The Managing Director, National Isurance Co. 3, Middleton Street, Calicut – 700071. 2. The Regional Manager, -- RESPONDENTS National Insurance Co. Cochin. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Branch 1, Post Box No.60, Soundarya Building, II floor, M.G.Road, Trivandrum-695001. (By Adv.S.Rajeev) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.340/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The OP stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainants is that the first complainant is the son of the second complainant. The R.C owner was the second complainant and the same was transferred in the name of the first complainant on 11.04.03. The insurance policy stood in the name of the second complainant. The vehicle met with an accident on 6.09.03. The opposite party/National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy stands in the name of the second complainant and the RC has been transferred in the name of the first complainant. It is the case of the opposite parties that both complainants would not be entitled for the own damage claim. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P6. 4. The Forum has relied on the decision of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd; (1996) 1 SCC 221. 5. The counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd; Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi (2008) 3 SCC 355. 6.We find that the National Commission in Sri.Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd; (2007) CPJ SC 208 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Chandh Katari and Anr (2008) CPJ 342 (NC) has explained the legal position in this regard. The decision cited by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramprakash Raturi (op.cit) has no relevance in the matter as the Supreme Court has not considered the legal position at all. The Supreme Court has not over-ruled the law as laid down in the decisions cited above. The counsel has also submitted that Section 157 (2) ML Act has specifically provided that the transferee shall within 14 days apply to transfer the policy in the name of the transferee. The above aspect has also been considered in the above-mentioned decisions. Section 157 (2) has not provided that the insurer is not bound to honour the policy with respect to the vehicle. We find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. The order of the Forum is set-aside. As the Forum has not considered the entitlement of the amounts due the matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to adjudicate as to the amounts due to the first complainant in the light of the version of the third opposite party/Insurance Company. 7. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 28.12.09.The Forum will issue notice to the complainants. The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
