Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of a Tata INDIGO LX car bearing Regd.No. OR-02-AT 6066 has purchased the vehicle from one Manas Padhi who has actually purchased the policy for the vehicle covering the period from 17.05.2012 to 16.05.2013. The vehicle was also registered in the name of the complainant. But during currency of the policy, the vehicle met accident of course after the ownership is transferred from Manas Padhi to the complainant. The claim was made by the complainant. But the OP No.1 repudiated the claim. As repudiation is deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 & 2 filed the written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint. It is also averred that the OP No.3 being the financer is actually insured in the instant case. OP No.1 & 2 further averred that there is no cause of action to file the case as on the date of accident, the policy did not stand in favour of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
.5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The complaint be and the same is allowed in favour of the complainant on contest. OP No.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.75,000/- towards claim for damage of the vehicle caused due to accident, Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of issue of this order failing which interest @ 9 % shall be charged on the amount comprising of claim and compensation for the delayed period starting from the date of order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned District Forum is wrong and illegal because they have not understood the fact and law involved in this case. According to her after transfer of the vehicle, new owner i.e. the present complainant was to apply for the transfer of the policy from the previous owner to present owner. She further submitted that as per the circular of IRDA 14 days time is required to apply before the insurer for transfer of the policy of the vehicle. But same fact is not followed by the complainant for transfer of policy, the repudiation is justified. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. So, she submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that Manas Padhi has sold the vehicle to the complainant on payment of consideration. It is admitted fact that the occurrence took place thereafter. It is not in dispute that Manas Padhi has purchased the policy for the period from 17.05.2012 to 16.05.2013. So on the date of accident the present respondent is owner of the vehicle but the policy continued in the name of the transferor Manas Padhi. The question here arises whether the claim should be settled or not. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the circular India Motor Tariff where it is mentioned at GR 17 in the following manner:-
“The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.”
9. She submits that under the aforesaid clause that the complainant has duty to apply for transfer of the benefit under the policy to the present complainant. But at the same time we have to go through the material and found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as appellant has not followed IRDA Circular which is as follows:-
“ In response to a query received from an insurer regarding the time limit provided under GR 17 of India Motor Tariff in respect of transfer of package, it is clarified that the ‘Liability only’ portion of the cover is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer, that is the transfer of ‘Liability Only’ cover is automatic irrespective of the type of policies and the 14 days time period mentioned in the tariff is more relevant to ‘Package Policy” ( i.e. Own Damage section). “
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that alongwith the transfer of ownership the policy is deemed to have been transferred from transferor to transferee. In view of discussion, we are of opinion policy is deemed to have been allowed on transferee to complainant on change of ownership. So, not settling of claim is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Learned District Forum has analyzed the case properly.
11. We, therefore, confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
