Haryana

StateCommission

A/634/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAROJ - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.634 of 2016  

Date of Institution: 29.06.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 19.12.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Delhi Rohtak Road, Bhadurgarh, Dist. Jhajjar, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Saroj Wd/o Naseeb Singh, R/o village Dhandhlan, Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri Saurabh Dalal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that her husband Nasib Singh was registered owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-14D-8685 insured vide policy No.421700/31/11/6100009784 valid from 12.01.2012 to 11.01.2013.  On 22.04.2012 that vehicle met with an accident and her husband died due to the same. The insurance of registered owner was up to Rs.Two lacs.  She approached (Opposite party) O.P. to pay that amount, but, her request was declined.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by O.P. that complaint was not maintainable and she was not having any locus standi to file the complaint.  Her claim was repudiated on 09.05.2013 because the insurance policy was not in the name of her husband, but, was in the name of one Ram Parkash.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.05.2016 and directed as under:-

“We therefore, direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation/as P.A. cover to the complainant on account of death of her husband late Sh.Naseeb Singh. It is also observed that the complainant had to file the present complaint due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as such, no doubt, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, we further direct the respondent to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and also a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent vehemently argued that from the perusal of registration certificate EX.P.6, it is clear that Naseeb Singh was registered owner  of this vehicle. Moment his name was incorporated in registration certificate (R.C.) insurance policy was automatically transferred to his name and he became entitled for the compensation as mentioned above. Learned District Forum has rightly granted compensation. The appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail. As per section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short “M.V.Act”) insurance policy automatically  stands transferred in the name of the person whose name has appeared in  R.C. qua third party compensation and not for the self.  Section 157 of M.V.Act is dealing with third party interest and not personal loss. Unless insurance policy is transferred in the name of transferee, he cannot ask for compensation on the basis of the same as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (p) Ltd Vs. New India Assurance 1 (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2009) CPJ 158 (NC). (case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant). The present case is  squarely covered by the aforesaid opinion. When the policy was existing in the name of Ram Parkash, LR of Naseeb Singh is not entitled for compensation. Learned district Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect. 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order  dated 24.05.2016 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

December 19th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.