This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1352/2009 of respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OP was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- being the insured value of the car stolen besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and loss suffered by him. The amount was ordered to be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OP was made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order i.e. 6.8.2010 till actual realization. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a second-hand Hyundai Santro Car bearing Registration No.CH-03-M-5196 from M/s Elite Industrial Products. The said car was insured for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from 3.1.2009 to 2.1.2010 in the name of M/s Elite Industrial Products. The ownership of the car was transferred in the name of the complainant within 10 days of its purchase. However, the insurance policy had not been got transferred in the name of the new purchaser/owner. The said car was stolen on 5.9.2009 for which complainant lodged FIR with the local police station. He also informed the OP insurance company about the theft of the car and lodged claim seeking indemnification of the loss. OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant did not have any insurable interest at the time of loss because the insurance was in the name of M/s Elite Industrial Products. The complainant represented that since the Registration certificate of the car stood in his name so the insurance transfer was automatic. Complainant then filed complaint before the District Forum . 4. On the other hand OP contested the complaint before the District Forum and filed reply inter-alia stating therein that the RC of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the earlier owner was transferred in the name of the complainant on 23.4.2009 but the insurance policy was not got transferred. The car of the complainant was stolen on 5.6.2009 and after the theft was reported to them, an Investigator was appointed who visited the place of both the earlier owner (insured) as well as the complainant and reported that the insured informed him in writing that he had sold the vehicle to the complainant and had nothing to do with it. Thus, the ownership of the car vested in the name of the complainant but he had not made any request to insurance company to transfer the policy in his name as such there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP. It was pleaded that as per term GR.17 of the Motor Tariff Act, the transfer of a packaged policy in the name of the transferee could be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale along with fresh proposal form and in view of this factual position, the OP had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as there was no automatic transfer of insurance benefit on the sale of the vehicle. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, Opposite party has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised by the counsel for appellant/OP is that according to GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules, a duty was cast upon the complainant to get the necessary changes about the transfer of ownership made in the insurance policy within 14 days of the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle. He submitted that on the date of loss, the policy in question stood in the name of previous owner M/s Elite Industrial Products while the registration certificate stood transferred in the name of complainant Sundeep Singh Rajvanshi and the latter failed to get the necessary change incorporated in the insurance policy by intimating and paying the requisite fee to the insurance company, therefore the complainant had no insurable interest on the date of loss. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following authorities ; (i) Madan Singh Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. I(2009)CPJ158 (NC) (ii)Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 221 (iii)Dharmendra Nath Thakur Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1)CPC 574 However, the learned counsel for respondent/complainant tried her level best to repel the aforesaid point of argument and stated that as per GR-10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee as well as Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 on sale of vehicles, benefits under policy on the date of transfer automatically accrue to the new owner. In support her contention she placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble National Commission in Sh.Narayan Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported as 2008(1)CPC 257. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant/OP that on the transfer of ownership of the vehicle the transferee was required to comply with certain conditions as prescribed in GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff. It is worth mentioning here that GR 10 stood superceded by the subsequent India Motor Tariff w.e.f. 1.7.2002, which supercede the provisions of earlier India Motor Tariff, which were in existence upto 30.6.2002 and G.R. 17 of India Motor Tariff dated 1.7.2002 replaced GR 10 of the earlier India Motor Tariff. In its recent pronouncement, the Hon’ble National Commission in Dharmendra Nath Thakur’s case (Supra ) by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. has held that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with the insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle. The authority cited by the learned counsel for complainant stood overruled by the recent judgments of Hon’ble National Commission as stated above. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the language used in Section 157 regarding automatic transfer of insurance policy is concerned only with regard to third party claim and not own damage claims. According to General Regulation 17 of the All India Motor Tariff, in case of package policy, the policy will be transferred only on compliance with the condition – (i) on specific request of transferee with consent letter of transferor ; (ii) fresh proposal form from transferee duly signed,(iii) acceptable evidence of sale, (iv)surrender of earlier certificate of insurance, (v) on payment of Rs.50/- for issuance of fresh certificate in the name of transferee. The relevant portion of the said Regulation reads as under ; 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. 9. Admittedly in the instant case the ownership of the vehicle was transferred on 23.4.2009 and there is no document available on the file that the complainant had applied to the Insurance company for making necessary endorsement on the policy about the change of ownership. The vehicle stood stolen on 5.6.2009 and at that the time policy stood in the name of previous owner. According to G.R. 17 the policy is not automatically transferred in the name of the transferee. 10. In view of the law settled, the impugned order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and same is accordingly set aside. Hence, the appeal is accepted and consequently complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
