Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/761/2010

Iffico Tikio Gen.Ins.Com.Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nitin Jain s/o Ravindra Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Vizzy Agawal

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 761 /2010

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. IFFCO House, 3^rd floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.

Vs.

Nitin Jain s/o Ravindra Jain r/o Mohalla Gaurwali, Ward no. 19, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar.

 

Date of Order 10.8.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the appellant

Mr.R.K.Tongawat counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

 

2

 

DCF Alwar dated 23.2.2010 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the motorcycle no. RJ 02 SJ 0323 was registered with the appellant company. The owner of this vehicle was one Mr.Rujdar. He sold this vehicle on 16.9.2008 to the present complainant Nitin Jain and vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant by the registering authority. On 20.9.2008 this motorcycle was stolen in Tijara. A formal FIR was lodged and theft claim was lodged with the insurance company who declined to honour the claim on the ground that the complainant had no privity of contract with the appellant company. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the learned DCF. The learned DCF rejected the objections raised by the appellant company by referring S.157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and GR 17 of Motor Vehicle Tariff. The learned DCF relied on IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) (Narayan Singh Vs. New India Insurance Co.) and allowed the complaint.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. No. 118/2013 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai

3

 

Bhagwan ). In this case the Hon'ble National Commission has held that

 

“…......“Own Damage” section of the insurance policy shall be made in favour of the transferee only on specific request from the transferee alongwith consent of the transferor. Thus, it is evident that the transfer of the insurable interest under the “Own Damage” pacakage section of the policy can be done only with the consent of the transferor”

 

In Revision Petition No. 129/2009 ( United India Insurance Co. Vs. Mr.Dada Miyan ) the Hon'ble National Commission held that transferee can apply for change of the insurance policy in his name under section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle. The Insurance Company in our view would be entitled to indemnify the transferee of the vehicle in a case where the loss/damage takes place within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle by him, but the complaint was disallowed on the ground that the complainant did not apply for transfer of insurance policy in his name at any point of time within 14 days.

 

4

 

In (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 221 ( Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that insured is not entitled to compensation from insurer for damage to the vehicle transferred to him in absence of specific contract with insurer covering risk or damage to the vehicle. Insurer's liability under the Act extends only to the risk or damage to property of third party.

 

The Hon'ble National Commission in its latest judgment in Revision Petition No. 2459/ 2014 ( Budhi Prakash Jain Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ) has disallowed the complaint relying on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble National Commission has laid down that under G.R. 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulations, a fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.

 

In the matter before us the incident took place after four days when the vehicle was transferred in the complainant's name but he did not apply for transfer of insurance of contract between the complainant and the Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.

5

 

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned DCF is quashed and set aside .

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm