1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 07.09.2021 of the State Commission in appeal no. 737 of 2020 arising out of the Order dated 30.06.2020 of the District Commission in complaint no. 890 of 2019.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioners herein) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 30.06.2020 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.09.2021 of the State Commission and the petition.

No one appears for the complainant.

3.       The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a motor-cycle for her son from one Mr. Mahesh P. on 27.04.2017. The said Mahesh P. had taken an insurance policy from the insurance co. for the period from 27.09.2016 to 26.09.2017. He had paid the premium. The policy (in his name) was in subsistence. After the transfer of the vehicle, the complainant got the ‘bainama’ entered in the records of the transport authorities on 26.04.2017. The vehicle was stolen on 02.06.2017. An F.I.R was lodged with the police on 03.06.2017. The insurance co. was intimated by the complainant on 08.06.2017.

4.       The insurance co. repudiated the claim on ground that request for transfer of the insurance policy from the name of the said one Mr. Mahesh P. to that of the complainant was not made by the complainant within 14 days of the transfer.

5.       The District Commission and the State Commission have both returned findings in favour of the complainant. The District Commission has ordered the opposite parties no. 1 and no. 2 insurance co. to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 1,37,824/- being the insured value of subject vehicle along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of theft of the said vehicle i.e. from 03.06.2017 till payment and Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The State Commission has confirmed the same.

6.       Learned counsel for the insurance co. argues that two fora below have relied on the provisions of section 157 (Transfer of certificate of insurance) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in holding that the insurance policy was ‘deemed transferred’ from the said one Mr. Mahesh P. to the complainant. The submission is that section 157 of the Act 1988 relates only to ‘third party’ risks and not to ‘own damage’ risks. He placed reliance on Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC).

7.       A perusal of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that section 157 (Transfer of certificate of insurance) falls under chapter XI, which deals only with ‘INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES AGAINST THIRTY PARTY RISKS’. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) has also elucidated that section 157 relates to ‘third party’ risks and not to ‘own damage’ risks. As such we agree with the learned counsel that the fora below have erred by relying on the provisions of section 157 of the Act 1988 by treating this case to be of ‘deemed transfer’ even when it was for ‘own damage’ risks and not for ‘third party’ risks which is the subject matter of section 157 of the Act 1988.

8.       Learned counsel further argues that in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 157 information had to be given to the insurance co. for transfer of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of the transfer. He takes a cue and draws a simile from this provision (which is in respect of ‘third party’ risks) and submits that information to the insurance co. regarding ‘own damage’ risks should also have been made within 14 days therefore.

9.       However such co-relation is erroneous. The 14 day period given in sub-section (2) in the specific context of ‘third party’ risks in a provision dealing with only ‘third party’ risks ought not be extrapolated in such a manner so as to relate to ‘own damage’ risks also.

10.     Learned counsel then in the alternative argues that a 14 day period for applying for transfer of the insurance policy is given in GR 17.

11.     He however has not been able to show that this rule (GR 17) which is meant for the financial health and discipline of the organisation i.e. the insurance co. was also incumbent on its consumers also, neither has he been able to show that this provision of GR 17 was duly included in the terms and conditions of the policy document. The policy document has not been filed with the petition. However learned counsel has not been able to point out anything from the record to show that any stipulation in any manner whatsoever had been made to the said one Mr. Mahesh P. the original policy holder that in case of transfer of the insured vehicle the transferee should inform the insurance co. within 14 days else the insurance policy will not be treated to be transferred and will be treated to have lapsed.

12.     Learned counsel could also not be able to reconcile to our satisfaction the paradoxical dichotomy on the part of the insurance co. in contending that on the one hand Mr. Mahesh P. had transferred the vehicle on 29.04.2017 to the complainant and as such he did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle on 02.06.2017 on the date when the theft took place while on the other hand the transferee i.e. the complainant too was not having any interest under the insurance policy since information of the transfer had not been made within 14 days of the transfer and as such the insurance co. was not liable to pay either of the two irrespective of the fact that it had received the premium and there was no objection from the one Mr. Mahesh P. apropos settling the claim with the transferee i.e. the complainant.

13.     It is not disputed that the premium had in fact been paid, the theft had in fact occurred, an F.I.R. had in fact been registered. Neither was GR 17 placed before the two fora below nor is it placed before this Commission with the petition. Nor has it been shown either before the two fora below or during the revisional proceedings before this Commission that the requirement of applying for transfer within 14 days had been built into the policy terms and conditions. In such facts the period of 33 days (i.e. from 26.04.2017, the date of transfer to 02.06.2017, the date of theft) or of 39 days (i.e. from 26.04.2017, the date of transfer to 08.06.2017, the date of information to the insurance co.) in the present case appears to be a reasonable and acceptable period and we do not feel that just this trifling aspect of period or this trivial hiatus can in any way be treated as fatal to the claim.

14.     We also note that the theft took place 02.06.2017, the complaint was filed in 2019 and we are now in 2022. It is also noteworthy that the complainant has stopped appearing in this case before this Commission after such efflux of time.

15.     Sequel to the above examination we dispose of this revision petition with the following observations and directions:

The District Commission vide its Order 30.06.2020 and the State Commission vide its Order dated 07.09.2021 erred by relying upon the provisions of section 157 of the Act 1988 in respect of ‘own damage’ risks when the said section only deals with ‘third party’ risks. The insurance co. wronged the complainant by denying the claim even when there was neither any questions on the theft of the insured vehicle and nor any questions on the transfer of the ownership and only a reasonable period of 33 days had elapsed between the date of transfer and the date of theft and within which period the complainant had also duly got the transfer of the vehicle entered in her name with the transport authorities and the transferor had not made any objection to the claim being settled in favour of the transferee i.e. the complainant.

As such we feel it apt  that the award made by the District Commission and upheld by the State Commission deserves to be met by the insurance co.

The amount if any deposited by the insurance co. with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 01.12.2014 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the respondent complainant by way of ‘payee’s account only’ demand draft as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the insurance co. within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.        

16.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.