DATE: 20-10-2014

This appeal is directed against the Order dt. 25-09-2012, passed in Case No. 118/2011 by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur, by which, the complaint has been dismissed on contest without any cost.  Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.

The case of the Complainant, briefly stated, is that he purchased a TATA Truck bearing Registration No. WB-33A-1185 from the OP no. 2 on 10-12-2010, which was insured with OP no. 1 under cover of Policy no. OG-11-2410-1803-00001483, for the period from 01-11-2010 to 31-10-2011.  On the intervening night of 09/10-04-2011, the said Truck got stolen near the New Bus Stand, where the vehicle was parked by his driver, Sultan Ali and accordingly, an FIR was lodged with Kharagpur Town PS vide Case No. 98/2011 dt. 10-04-2011 u/s 379 IPC.  The OP no. 1 was apprised of such matter by the Complainant. The police, having failed to trace the vehicle, submitted FRT before the Ld. CJM, Paschim Medinipur.  Having failed to get any positive reply from the OP no. 1, the Complainant served a legal notice upon him, but that too went in vain, as the latter did not bother to respond the same. Hence, the case.

It is the contention of OP no. 1 that insofar as OP no. 2 has sold the insured vehicle to the Complainant, insurable interest thereof has been lost by the OP no. 2.  There being no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP insurer in respect of the vehicle in question, the Complainant is not entitled to any insurance benefit.  Moreover, the Complainant has not paid any amount towards consideration under the contract of insurance and thus, there is no relationship of customer and service provider between the OP insurer and the Complainant.  As per provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff GR 17 – ‘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, with the details of the registration 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 the existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any, and than 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’.  The Complainant had failed to take necessary steps toward getting the policy transferred and hence has no contract of insurance with the insurance company with respect to the vehicle bearing no. WB-33A/1185.  The vehicle in question being admittedly sold, there was deemed transfer of policy under the Motor Vehicles Act and such transfer affected the third party risk only.  Hence, the OP no. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant, and prayed for dismissal of the case. 

OP. 2, vide his written statement before the Ld. Forum confirmed the matter of selling of the vehicle to the Complainant by him and stated that if the Complainant gets any compensation from the insurance company, he has no objection to the same.

It is to be considered in this appeal as to whether the impugned order, warrants any interference with the same on the point of law, or not. 

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has made out that the Appellant has bought the TATA truck concerned bearing registration no. WB-33A-1185 at a price of Rs. 8,25,000/- from the erstwhile owner, Mr. Arup Halder by a money receipt dt. 10-12-2010.  Subsequently, the Appellant has registered his name with the concerned registering authority in respect of the said vehicle.  Thus, he is the present legal owner of the vehicle in question.  But, the insurance policy has not been changed in the name of the Appellant.  However, the Appellant can claim the benefit of insurance being the present beneficiary in the place of erstwhile owner, namely, Mr. Arup Halder.  He has further mentioned that as per the written version of the OP no. 1 itself, the said insurance company was agreeable to indemnify the loss with a deduction of 40% depreciation, as per terms and conditions of the policy.  He has referred two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2013 (4) CPR 96 (NC) and II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC).

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Appellant has no insurable interest as regards his claim, and so, his case could not be considered, and the insurance company is not liable in this case to indemnify the Complainant/Appellant as the insurance policy does not stand in his name and that the decision of Ld. District Forum in this regard is a just and perfect one.  There is no privity of contract in between the insurance company and the present Appellant/Complainant, but with the erstwhile owner, namely, Mr. Arup Halder.  It is further stated by the Ld. Advocate that it was the onus of the transferee to enlist his name in the insurance coverage as per the provisions of Indian Motor Tariff, GR 17.  Also, Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates this.  Accordingly, the claim of the Complainant/Appellant is no claim before the insurance company and they cannot be held responsible for indemnification of the alleged loss on account of non-compliance of the statutory provisions by the Complainant/Appellant.  The statement made in the written version of deduction of 40% depreciation is the norm in the matter of settlement of a claim and such question arises while considering the extent of indemnification of a loss to an insured, which in this case did not arise at all. He has cited some decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, namely, in RP No. 1470/2006  in Appeal No. 336 of 2004 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Divya Prashad), RP No. 2012/2007 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Kamal Tours & Travels), RP No. 1528/2007 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dalip Kumar) and of this Commission in RP No. 161/2012 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri Sankar Dutta & Ors.).

There is practically no case of the Complainant/Appellant in the matter.  He has got no insurable interest, though he has become owner of the vehicle in question.  Further action on his part, as was required of him to initiate in order to ensure getting insurance benefit, admittedly has not been taken by him in proper perspective at all. His ignorance about the necessity of incorporating necessary changes in the policy document, post selling of the insured vehicle, does not give rise to any cause of action.  Ignorance is no excuse in the eye of law.  In any case, there is no deficiency on the part of the insurance company.  Accordingly, the impugned order, passed on the basis of the provisions of law itself, stands.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 and exparte against the Respondent No. 2, but without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.