This Revision Petition calls in question the correctness and legality of order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T Chandigarh (for short, “the State Commission”) in appeal no. 2254 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has over -turned the order dated 23.10.2008, made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – I, UT Chandigarh (for short, “the District Forum”) in complaint case no. 371 of 2008. The District Forum while allowing the complaint preferred by the Petitioners, had directed the Insurance Company, the Respondent herein, to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from 01.12.2006, the date on which the Surveyor had submitted his report, till realisation, towards loss suffered by them on account of fire, in which the insured vehicle was burnt on 05.11.2006. Relying on G R 17 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, which came into force in the year 2002, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that as the Complainants did not inform the Insurance Company about the change in ownership of the vehicle, they had no insurable interest in the vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in the issue raised in the Petition is no more res-integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Shri Ashok Kumar (RP No. 2118 of 2012), and vide order dated 19th March 2013, it has been held that if the transferee of the vehicle fails to inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle in his name and the policy is not got transferred in his name, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim which may be preferred by the transferee on theft of the vehicle. In coming to the said conclusion, the Bench has referred to GR 10 and 17, issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee as also to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram and Anr. Vs Sukhrania and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 97. In our opinion, the said decision is on all fours on facts at hand. Admittedly at the time of fire, the vehicle in question stood transferred in the name of Petitioner no. 2, namely, Shri Jagdish Rai Garg, but the policy in question remained in the name of his son, namely, Rajesh Garg, the original owner. Before that date/ incident no steps were taken to get the policy transferred in the name of the transferee. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the view taken by the State Commission. Consequently, the impugned order is affirmed and the Revision Petition, is dismissed with no order as to costs. |
