PRONOUNCED ON_05.01.2018 ORDER PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., against the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 71 of 2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant purchased the vehicle from the previous owner on 12.04.2012. The vehicle was insured by the previous owner w.e.f. 24.09.2011 to 23.09.2012 for an IDV of Rs.3,90,000/-. This was a private car package policy. The vehicle was stolen on 20.05.2012. The complainant informed the insurance company on 22.05.2012. The insurance company appointed a surveyor. The Surveyor submitted its report on 15.10.2012 stating that the complainant informed the police only on 31.05.2012, i.e., after 11 days of the theft. It was also observed by the Surveyor that the registration certificate was not transferred in the name of the complainant/respondent on the date of the theft of the vehicle. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 25.10.2012 on the ground that the complainant did not have any insurable interest as he had no privity of contract with the insurance company. 3. Aggrieved with the repudiation, the complainant filed consumer complaint No. 45/2013. The complaint was resisted by the OP/ petitioner on the basis of the surveyor’s report. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.08.2014 allowed the complaint as under:- “In view of the above discussion, present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opp. Parties to pay Rs.3,90,000/- as insured amount with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint, till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order. File be consigned to record after due compliance”. 4. Aggrieved, the OP preferred an Appeal bearing No. 71/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide its order dated 07.07.2015. 5. Hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the previous owner on 12.04.2012, but he did not intimate about this transfer to the insurance company, nor did he get his name mentioned in the registration certificate, whereas, according to the India Motor Tariff, the complainant was required to get registration in his name, within a period of 14 days and to have filed the application for transfer of insurance in his name. Thus, at the time of incident of theft, neither the policy was issued in the name of the complainant nor the registration was in his name. Thus clearly, the complainant did not have any insurable interest. 8. Moreover, as per the policy conditions, in the case of theft, apart from immediately intimating to the insurance company, the insured is required to inform the police about the theft. This is important so that police and the insurance company may launch joint efforts for tracing the vehicle. In the present case, the police had been informed on 31.05.2012 as would be clear from the FIR lodged. Both the fora below have grossly erred in not considering these two points which were very vital for establishing the present insurance claim. It was requested that the revision petition may be allowed and the orders of the fora below be set aside. Though, the complainant is claiming that he deposited the application form for transfer of registration on 17.05.2012 and got registration on 23.05.2012, but no proof has been submitted when the fees for transfer of RC was deposited, and, therefore, the date of 17.05.2012 has been mentioned only to prove that application was made before the incident of theft. The learned counsel further argued that it will not make much difference when the application was filed for change of registration certificate because the same has been filed after a long gap of more than 14 days from the date of purchase. 9. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Yogesh Yadav, Revision Petition No. 1060 of 2016, decided on 31.05.2016, wherein this Commission held as follows:- “8. Though the exact date of the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant is not known, it is obvious that he had purchased it on or before 24.09.2010 when the registration certificate of the vehicle was transferred in his name. Therefore, he ought to have applied to the insurer by 08.10.2010 for transferring insurance in his name. That having not been done, there was no privity of contract between him and the petitioner company, on the date the vehicle got burnt. 9. It would also be appropriate here to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586 where the apex court clarified that it is only in respect of the third party risks that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred”. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g. damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. Since there was no privity of contract between the petitioner company and the complainant on the date the vehicle got burnt, the petitioner company was not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss sustained by him”. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon Attar Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. & Anr., Revision Petition No. 3614/2012, decided on 09.10.2012 wherein the complainant/petitioner failed to inform the opposite party/ respondent/ Insurance Co., immediately, but informed only after a long delay; similarly, the intimation of theft was given only after 27 days. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed on ground of violation of policy conditions. To further support his arguments, learned counsel referred to the judgment passed in M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – 1996 ACJ 65, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct”. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant stated that the application for transfer of registration certificate was moved on 17.05.2012 itself and the name of the complainant was entered by transfer in the registration certificate on 23.05.2017. Thus the complainant has taken all the steps required for transfer of the registration certificate in his name and finally the RC exists in his name. So far as the delay in filing the FIR is concerned, learned counsel mentioned that police files FIR only after preliminary investigation. Though, the police was informed, yet, they did not lodge the FIR and for that delay, the complainant may not be held responsible. The learned counsel further pointed out that the facts cannot be reassessed at the stage of revision petition as both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the application for getting the insurance cover transferred in the name of the complainant was to be filed only after the registration certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant. Learned counsel further pointed out that the language of the GR-17 of India Motor Tariff clearly implies that the insurance cover automatically stands transferred to the purchaser of the vehicle and the rest remains only the formalities for applying for change of registration certificate and filing an application with the insurance company. Just for the sake of formalities, the right of the complainant to get the insurance claim cannot be taken away. 12. I have examined the material on record and have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. Both the sides agree that the vehicle was insured from 24.09.2011 to 23.09.2012 and the incident of theft occurred on 20.05.2012. They also agreed that the vehicle was purchased from the previous owner by the complainant on 12.04.2012 and no intimation was given to the insurance company by the complainant before the date of incident for transferring the insurance in his name. It is also admitted that on the date of incident of theft, the registration certificate existed in the name of the previous owner. 13. It is important to note that GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff provides as under :- “GR.17. Transfers. On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, 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. 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. In case of Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee‟s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer. A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies. Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued”. 14. It is clear from this provision that the transferee of the vehicle has to inform the insurance company, within 14 days of the transfer. In the present case, the sale had happended on 12.04.2011, but the insurance company was not informed, till the date of incident of theft. Even the registration was not obtained in the name of the transferee. Thus, it is clear that the complainant in the present case, did not have any contract of insurance with the OP and the automatic transfer of insurance is only for the third-party and not for the owner of the vehicle. For obtaining the benefit of insurance for own damage, the transferee has to apply to the insurance company, along with all the papers and the same has not been applied in the present case. Thus, I find merit in the revision petition and particularly, the petitioner – insurance company did not have privity of contract with the complainant and the provisions of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff have not been complied with. In such situation, the orders of the State Commission as well as of the District Forum cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The revision petition No.2772/2015 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost for this revision petition. | 
