West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/121/2015

Sri Tapan Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.121/2015

                                                       

                                        Sri Tapan Kumar Das……………………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1)The Divisional Manager, (National Insurance Co. Ltd.),

2)   Sri Ram Hari Roy……………………………….Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant  : Mr.  Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

              For the O.Ps.               : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Chowdhury, Advocate

                                                                         and

                                                      Mr. Somasis Ponda, Advocate

 

 

Decided on: -  14/03/2016

                               

ORDER

                       Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Maruti Omni Car, the description of which has been mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint, from one Ram Hari Roy i.e. opposite party no.2 on 28/05/2014.  After such purchase,  the ownership of the vehicle was duly changed in the name of the complainant as per rules by the Motor Vehicle Department, Paschim Medinipur.  The Motor Vehicles Department duly issued all necessary documents in the name of the complainant.  Thereafter on 20/06/2014, the said vehicle met with an accident and a major portion of the vehicle was damaged.  The complainant thereafter informed the said occurrence of accident to the opposite party no.1 and requested them to settle the claim of policy as per law.  The opposite party no.1 duly sent a surveyor for examination of the vehicle and one surveyor also came for examination of the damaged vehicle but

Contd……………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

thereafter the opposite party no.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant.  It is contended that due to such accident, a major portion of the vehicle was damaged and the vehicle was surveyed by a local Auto Mobile mechanic who estimated a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- only for repairing of the vehicle.  Thereafter the opposite party no.1 issued a letter dated 06/04/2015 to the complainant thereby repudiating the claim of insurance on the basis of illegal findings.  It is stated that the service of the opposite party no.1 is not satisfactory from the very beginning and as per law, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insurance coverage to the complainant.  After issuing that illegal notice, the opposite party no.1 has committed deficiency in service.  Hence this case,  praying for directing the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as sum assured against the accidental damage of the  vehicle and an award of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

                    The opposite party No.2 Ram Hari Roy though appeared in this case but he did not contest this case for which the case was ordered to be heard ex- parte against the opposite party no.2.  Opposite party no.1, the National Insurance Company Ltd. has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                    Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2 that the complainant filed a claim form on 06/07/2014 claiming the insurance benefit of his damaged vehicle bearing no.WB-34G 5416(Maruti Omni) and annexed xerox copy of R.C Book, seizure list, tax token, written complaint, xerox copy of D.L and on receiving the said claim,  the opposite party no.1 sent a surveyor for spot inspection but on verification of documents, it was found that the Insurance Policy is not in the name of the complainant and according to insurance policy, one Ram Hari Roy (opposite party no.2) was found to be the insured in respect of the said vehicle.  From the enclosures submitted by the complainant it was found that the registration book of the alleged damaged vehicle discloses the name of the complainant as owner and according to the complainant the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the original owner Ram Hari Roy on 28/05/2014 and thereafter he transferred his name in the registration book in respect of the alleged damaged vehicle as per Registration Act.  It is further contended by the opposite party no.1 that according to General Rules (G.R.)-17 of INDIAN MOTOR TARIFF, the transferee of ownership shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle by the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer

Contd……………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

may make necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance policy and the complainant never applied for transfer of his name as present owner of the alleged damaged vehicle within the stipulated period of 14 days and as per insurance policy the complainant cannot get any insurance benefit for damage of the vehicle.  It is further stated that the complainant has not compiled the provision of G.R.-17 by intimating the company as regards change of ownership of the alleged damaged vehicle during coverage period of insurance policy of the damaged vehicle and as such the complainant cannot claim insurable interest under the insurance policy which stands in the name of previous owner.  As the complainant did not comply the rules of G.R.-17 so there is no deficiency of service from the side of this opposite party and for the reason stated above this complaint case is liable to be dismissed/rejected.

   

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

    In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party no.1 adduced any evidence but they have relied upon some documents in support of their respective cases.

    The following facts are not in dispute before us:-

    The complainant Tapan Kumar Das purchased a Maruti Van being registration no.WB-34G 5416 from the opposite party no.2 Ram Hari Roy on 28/05/2014 and after purchase of the said vehicle, the registration of the vehicle was changed in the name of the complainant as per rules of Motor Vehicles Department.  The vehicle in question was insured in the name of the previous owner i.e. opposite party no.2 Ram Hari Roy by the opposite party no.1- National Insurance Company Ltd. covering the period from 16/07/2013 to 15/07/2014.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 20/06/2014 causing major damage of the vehicle.  Admittedly, the complainant neither got the Insurance Policy transferred in his name nor informed the opposite party no.1- National Insurance Company Ltd. about transfer of the ownership of the vehicle prior to submission of claim form.  Admittedly, by sending a letter dated 06/04/2015, the opposite party no.1- National Insurance Company Ltd. informed the complainant that since the policy was issued in the name of the previous owner Ram Hari Roy and since the complainant did not change the name in the policy from the Insurance office, so there was no insurable interest of the complainant and under such circumstances, the opposite party no.1 informed  by their said   letter to the complainant that the claim is not admissible by the Company.

Contd……………P/4

 

 

( 4 )

        At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant referred a ruling of Hon’ble  Punjab State Consumer Redressal Commission reported in 2009(1) CPR 230 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Commission that Insurance policy gets transferred automatically in favour of the purchaser.  Relying upon the said ruling, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the opposite party no.1 was not justified in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant in respect of his damaged vehicle.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party no.1 referred the decisions of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in Revision Petition no.3502 of 2009 on 21/02/2013 and another decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission  passed in Revision Petition no.2355 of 2012 on 14/02/2014.  Another ruling of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been referred by the opposite party no.1 which was passed in Revision Petition no.3170 of 2008 on 03/12/2013.  We have gone through the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble  National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission and found that in Revision Petition no.3502 of 2009 which was pronounced on 21/02/2013,  Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that “ as per GR-17,  on transfer of ownership, transferee is required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who had insured the vehicle,  with the details of registration of vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle,  previous owner of the vehicle and the date and number of the policy so that the insurer may make necessary changes in the record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.  Unless the aforesaid procedure of transfer of vehicle is followed and compiled, the transferee has no insurable interest.  It would be seen that on receipt of the information from the transferee the Insurance Company is required to make changes in its record and issue a fresh certificate of Insurance.  In the present case, admittedly as pointed out earlier the transferee i.e. respondent did not intimate the Petitioner Insurance Company about the transfer of ownership of the vehicle within 14 days of the registration in his name to enable the petitioner to make necessary changes in its record and issue a fresh certificate of Insurance.  The transferee did not get any novation of contract of insurance in respect of the person or property and therefore, respondent did not have any insurable interest on the date on which the vehicle met with an accident”.  In the said ruling, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission   has also been pleased to hold that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act is applicable to third party rights only and not to own damage case.  We find from the said decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that in Rikhi Ram and Anr. Vs. Sukhrania and Ors. – (2003) 3SCC97, the

Contd……………P/5

 

 

( 5 )

Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provision of Sec.157 held that although with the transfer of the vehicle the Insurance Company remains liable towards third party claims  but the transferee cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act.  Similarly three members Bench of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission  in the case of Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. 1(2009) CPJ 158 (NC) has been pleased to hold that in the case of own damage, unless and until the policy is transferred in the name of the new owner, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss.

      In the present case before us we find that the complainant purchased the Maruti Van from the opposite party no.2 on 28/05/2012.   Copy of registration certificate regarding change of ownership of the vehicle, so issued by the Registering Authority on 28/05/2014, we find that the name of the complainant was registered as new owner of the said vehicle w.e.f. 28/05/2012.  The accident of the vehicle took place on 20/06/2014.  Admittedly after registration of the vehicle, the complainant did not inform the opposite party no.1 regarding change of ownership of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of transfer for making necessary changes in the record and issuance of fresh certificate of insurance.

     So, in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and the Tariff  Regulations and the aforesaid  decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the opposite party- Insurance Company was quite justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant in as much as the complainant admittedly failed to inform the opposite party- Insurance Company about  the transfer of registration in his name and consequently policy is not transferred in the name of the complainant.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                                                         Hence, it is,

                                                                             Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.121/2015  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                           President                                    Member                                  President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur