Haryana

StateCommission

A/774/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.SHARMA

22 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    774 of 2015

Date of Institution:    11.09.2015

Date of Decision :     22.12.2015

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

Through authorized officer Shri Tarsem Chand, Manager (Legal), The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Suresh s/o Sh. Surajmal, Resident of Village and Post Office Ritauli, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Bijender Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20^th July, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.401 of 2015.

2.      Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR-12M-1052 was insured with The New Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period June 9^th, 2011 to June 8^th, 2012, for Rs.43,750/-, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. On April 6^th, 2012 the motor cycle was stolen in the area of Model Town, Rohtak. F.I.R. No.189 dated April 9^th, 2012, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2) was purchased by Satya Narayan, that is, previous registered owner from whom the complainant purchased the motorcycle and got the Registration Certificate transferred in his name but did not get the Insurance Policy transferred in his name. Therefore, the complainant had no insurable interest with respect to the Insurance Policy.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply denying the claim of the complainant as stated in the preceding para and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“……opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.43,750/- (Rupees forty three thousand seven hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.07.2012 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion for formalities e.g. Form No.26,28,29,30,35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

5.      The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the complainant had no insurable interest in the motor cycle as the Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2 was purchased by its previous owner Satya Narain and he sold the motorcycle to the complainant. The motor cycle was transferred in the name of complainant on 14.11.2011 but the complainant did not get the Insurance Policy transferred in his name. It was further pleaded that the complainant further sold the motor cycle to one Hardeep Singh s/o Sh. Bhoop Singh. Thus, the complainant was not entitled for any insurable benefits.

6.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle was insured comprehensively and therefore the District Forum rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

7.      The question for consideration is as to whether the complainant was entitled to be indemnified by the Insurance Company or not?

8.      It is not disputed that the motor cycle was comprehensively insured with the Insurance Company for the period 09.06.2011 to 08.06.2012. It was stolen on 06.04.2012. A perusal of Registration Certificate Exhibit R-6 shows that the motor cycle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 14.11.2011, that is, during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. Thus, on the date of theft, the complainant was the registered owner of the motorcycle.  

9.      In Mallamma (Dead) by LRs versus National Insurance Company Limited & others, 2014(3) CLT 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 157 – Insurance claim –Transfer of ownership – Once the ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy will not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the M.V. Act is not given to the insurer.”

10.    Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. versus Manjit Kaur and others, 2000(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 441 (D.B.), held as under:-

“A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 157 shows that when a vehicle is sold with the insurance policy, the same is deemed to have been transferred to the purchaser. This deeming provision is not subject to any other limitation. It is true that sub-section (2) provides that the purchaser shall apply for the transfer of the policy in his name within 14 days to the insurance company but it does not, in any manner, provide that failure to make such application would nullify either the deemed transfer as envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 157 of the Act or the insurance policy.”

11.    In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sharanjit Kaur and others, 2005(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 481 (DB), Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under:-

“7.     In our opinion, the above Section does not provide that if the transferee fails to apply on the prescribed form to the insurer for the transfer of the certificate of insurance, then whether the policy would become invalid or lapse. Rather, Section 157(1) of the Act provides that where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provision of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. By Act No.54 of 1994 an explanation has also been added, which came into force with effect from 14.11.1994. In this explanation, it is declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.”

12.    From the above, it is established that once the ownership of vehicle is admitted to have been transferred, the existing insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle shall be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy would not lapse even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not given to the insurer. Since on the date of theft the complainant was the registered owner of the motor cycle, so Satya Narayan from whom the motor cycle was purchased by the complainant, had no concern with the benefits of insurance. The complainant being the registered owner was entitled to the benefits of insurance till the date the motor cycle remained in his name. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant.

13.    In view of the above, the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated complainant’s claim. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

14.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

15.    The statutory amount of Rs.21,875/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 22.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL