PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, Madurai Bench (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 90/2012  – The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ind. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Henry Rajesh by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased a car from a third person. His name was transferred in the R.C. Book; but his name was not transferred in the insurance policy. The above car met with an accident on 05.09.2009. The complainant claimed compensation from the opposite parties but his claim was repudiated without valid reason.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant did not intimate to the OP about change of ownership of vehicle within 14 days along with requisite fee; so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.4,29,057/- towards damage to the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.  Appeal filed by OPs was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of no request with fee within prescribed period for transfer of policy in complainant’s name and inspite of IDV of Rs. 1,82,250/-, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and awarding Rs.4,29,057/- and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that requisite notice was given by complainant to the OP but admitted that amount beyond IDV could not have been allowed and prayed for modification of impugned order to the extent of.

5.      Perusal of insurance policy issued by OP in favour of earlier owner C. Deepa reveals that total sum insured was Rs. 1,82,250/- and insurance policy was issued for a period of one year from 13.11.2008 to 12.11.2009.  Accident occurred on 5.9.2009 and learned District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.4,29,057/- on the basis of estimate for repairs which is totally contrary to law.  OP cannot be held responsible to make payment more than IDV and learned District Forum committed error in allowing claim of Rs. 4,29,057/- against IDV of Rs. 1,82,250/-. Learned State Commission in para 7 of the impugned order observed that having regard to the circumstances of the case, there was nothing wrong in granting amount based on estimate which is also contrary to law and State Commission even if rejecting repudiation on the basis of non-intimation within prescribed period should have reduced claim amount to the extent of IDV. Learned Counsel for respondent agreed that Fora below could not have allowed compensation beyond IDV and agreed for modification of impugned order to this extent.

6.      The next core question to be decided is whether; complainant applied to OP for transfer of insurance policy in his name along with requisite fee.  Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that as there is concurrent finding on this point by the Fora below, this point cannot be considered again by this Commission and he placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) – Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  In the aforesaid judgment it was observed that revisional power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.  As discussed above, there is clear patent mistake in awarding compensation of Rs. 4,29,057/- against IDV Rs.1,82,250/-.  Not only this, inspite of no request for getting policy transferred in the name of complainant, Fora below committed error in observing intimation and awarding compensation and in circumstances, in revisional jurisdiction this point has to be considered.

7.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no request for transfer of insurance policy was made by complainant to OP. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that intimation was given by letter dated 11.9.2009.  Learned Counsel for respondent could not place A/D or postal receipt by which it can be inferred that this intimation was sent by complainant to OP.  Next letter dated 22.9.2009 sent by complainant to OP reveals that earlier letter was returned back to him by Chennai office which has also not been placed on record.  In para 3 of the complaint it was alleged that complainant informed change of ownership to OP No. 1 on 11.9.2011 whereas in the complaint OP No. 1’s  address is of Pune and letter dated 11.9.2009 has been addressed at Chennai address and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that letter dated 1.9.2009 was sent by complainant to OPs at their Pune or Madurai address.

8.      Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that letter dated 11.9.2009 was sent by complainant at Chennai address, in the absence of branch address in insurance policy, by this letter it was nowhere requested that insurance policy be transferred in his name and has also not attached payment of fee of Rs.50/- which was required to be sent as per GR 17 of India Motor Tariff.  In the absence of payment of requisite fee, alleged request for change of name of previous owner in the insurance policy could not have been done by OP and in such circumstances, it can be held that complainant did not get insurance policy transferred in his name as required under Section 157 (2)  Motor Vehicle Act. As insurance policy not stood transferred in the name of complainant before the date of accident, complainant was not entitled to any compensation for damage to the vehicle in the light of judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 2355 of 2012 – Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr., and learned State Commission committed error in awarding cost of repair along with compensation and revision petition is to be allowed.

9.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 5.8.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 90/2012 – The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Henry Rajesh and order of District Forum dated 13.12.2010 in CC No. 53 of 2010 - R. Henry Rajesh Vs. The Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed.  Parties to bear their costs. Original record may be returned back to learned District forum.