APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  27^th OCTOBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.08.2013, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 30/2010, “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Randhir Jain.”, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 08.06.2009, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 756/2008, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Randhir Jain purchased a Maruti Car, bearing registration No. DL-9CF 9856 from the earlier owner Ripin Kumar Mittal in the month of March 2008.  The said car had been insured for a sum of ₹1,50,000/- for the period from 18.10.2007 to 17.10.2008 in the name of the owner Ripin Kumar Mittal.  The original owner had purchased the said car in December 2004 from M/s. Rama Motors.  The car met with an accident near Palwal, Haryana and was seriously damaged.  As per the complainant, he brought the damaged car to his residence in Delhi and gave intimation to the OP Insurance Company to arrange for its inspection.  It is stated in the consumer complaint, however, that the clerk of the complainant went to the address of the OP Insurance Company at Gupta Market, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi but found the premises locked.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, saying that they never informed about the shifting of their office to the policy holder, Ripin Kumar Mittal or to the complainant.  The complainant then found out the new address of the OP Insurance Company and is stated to have sent the letter of intimation to their office on 27.05.2008, a fact which is denied by the OP Insurance Company.  The complainant then took the car for repairs to the workshop of M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Limited at Delhi, where an estimate of ₹1,51,301/- was given to him.  The complainant is stated to have sent this estimate alongwith a letter to the OP Insurance Company, but the said Company repudiated the insurance claim vide their letter dated 02.06.2008, saying that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, as the policy was in the name of the original owner R.K. Mittal.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking a total compensation of ₹3,25,900/- from the insurance company, alongwith cost of litigation and interest @15% p.a.

3.       The District Forum allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay a compensation of ₹1,20,000/- after adjusting the salvage value of the vehicle of ₹30,000/- alongwith interest @10% p.a.  The District Forum, while passing this order placed reliance on an order passed by this Commission in “Narayan Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” [IV (2007) CPJ 286 (NC)] stating that after the sale of the vehicle, the insurance policy gets automatically transferred in favour of the purchaser.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.

4.       Relying upon the order passed by this Commission in “Madan Singh vs. United India Insurance Co.” [I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)], the State Commission held that section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was applicable only in third party claims and not for own damage cases.  The State Commission brought out that the contention of the complainant that he had duly intimated about the transfer of the vehicle to the insurance company, had not been substantiated from record.  They allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.       During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the purchase of the car from the original owner R.K. Mittal, the complainant had sent due intimation to the insurance company on 02.04.2008 at their address mentioned in the insurance policy, but there was no response from them.  This was followed by a reminder sent on 15.05.2008 to the Insurance Company, but there was no response.  The car met with an accident on 18.05.2008, the complainant then located the new address of the insurance company and sent all necessary papers to them, but still they repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 02.06.2008.  However, the Insurance Company informed the complainant vide their letter dated 11.06.2008 that they had deputed a surveyor Sanjay Sachdeva to assess the loss.  The said surveyor vide letter dated 12.06.2008 asked them to show him the damaged vehicle.  However, the complainant informed the surveyor vide their letter dated 16.06.2008 that he had sold the salvage of the vehicle on 10.06.2008.  The learned counsel has further drawn attention to a copy of letter of intimation to the Insurance Company dated 27.05.2008 placed on record, upon which the receipt stamp dated 27.05.2008 of the Insurance Company had been affixed.  The learned counsel stated that the order passed by the District Forum was based on a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and should be upheld. 

6.       In reply, the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company stated that they never received the letter dated 27.05.2008 regarding intimation of the accident to them.  Moreover, as per the own version of the complainant, the intimation was given to them after 9 days of the incident.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to the observation made by the State Commission in their impugned order, saying that although the complainant had claimed that alongwith his letter dated 02.04.2008, he had sent photocopy of insurance policy and registration certificate to the Insurance Company, but there was no proof of the said documents having been delivered to the Insurance Company.  The order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and should be upheld.

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       The basic issue involved in the matter is whether after the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner from the original owner, there is a deemed transfer of the policy in favour of the purchaser, or the said policy was to be got transferred after making an appropriate application for the same.  This Commission examined the issue in detail in its order dated 16.08.2016 in RP No. 3216/2015, “Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sombir”.  It has been amply made clear in the said order that section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a part of Chapter XI of the said Act, is applicable in the case of third party risks only.  In the instant case, which relates to own damage to the vehicle, such section does not have any application.  It has further been stated in the said order that under GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, a specific request has to be made by the transferee for the transfer of the policy in his name.  It has been stated in the order as follows:-

“12.      A perusal of the GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations shows that the Liability Only Cover is deemed to have been transferred from the date of such transfer to a transferee, whereas for transfer of Own Damage Section of an insurance policy, a specific request has to be made by the transferee alongwith consent of transfer and a fresh proposal form has to be submitted with evidence of sale.  It is evident that there is no deemed transfer in such cases but a duty has been cast upon the transferee to make appropriate application for the transfer of policy in his name.  The natural implication of this provision is that a transferee has to apply to the insurance company within a period of 14 days of the transfer having been completed, failing which, he shall not be liable for payment of claim in the eventuality of such claim arising on account of any untoward incident.”

9.       In the instant case, the petitioner/complainant has tried to explain that he purchased the vehicle in question, in the middle of March 2008.  However, no specific date for the purchase has been mentioned.  The petitioner was provided an opportunity to file copies of the declarations contained in Form 29 and Form 30, relating to the transfer of ownership of motor vehicles as prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.  However, the appellant failed to produce the said documents on record.  Further, the appellant has himself stated in his complaint that the factum of transfer of ownership was intimated to the insurance company on 02.04.2008 at their old address, but there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, as they had not intimated the change of address to the policy holder.  This contention of the petitioner/complainant is not tenable, as the insurance company is not supposed to intimate changes in their address to the policy-holder.  Later on, following the accident, the complainant did make attempt to search for correct address of the insurance company and he has stated that he provided intimation about the accident at the new address.  The complainant could very well have done the same exercise at the time of transfer of the vehicle and ensured that the policy stood transferred in his name.  Even if the version of the complainant that he intimated the factum of transfer to the insurance company on 02.04.2008 is believed, it is not clear whether the said intimation was within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle to him, in the absence of specific date of transfer of the vehicle on record.  It has been observed in the impugned order by the State Commission that the complainant placed copies of letters dated 02.04.2008 and 15.05.2008 purported to have been sent by him to the insurance company on record, but only the copy of the insurance policy was appended with the letter dated 02.04.2008.  The fact remains, however, that the insurance policy in question was not transferred in favour of the complainant and hence, the stand taken by the insurance company that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, is substantiated from record. 

10.     Based on the discussion above, we have no alternative but to agree with the order passed by the State Commission that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim in question, as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company.  The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, which may call for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  This revision petition stands dismissed, therefore, and the impugned order is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.