Per Shri Hon'ble Presiding Judicial P.N.Kashalkar, Member:-

This is an appeal filed by org.complainant whose complaint was dismissed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Satara  by judgement delivered on 11/02/2009 in consumer complaint no.311/2008.  As such, original complainant has come up in appeal.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

        Complainant had filed complaint against insurance company alleging deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  He pleaded that he had purchased jeep no. MH-09-3870 from Kiran Sarjrao Dange on 24/10/2007. After giving full consideration of the jeep, Mr.Kiran Dange had given papers including insurance company papers purchased by Mr.Kiran Dange for taking insurance cover for the jeep to the complainant.  Mr.Kiran Dange had also written letter to insurance company informing them that he had sold the jeep and therefore, insurance cover should be transferred in the name of complainant. He had sent a letter dated 01/11/2007 to the insurance company, however the R.C.book was not in the name of the complainant, opp.party had not transferred the policy in his name on that ground.  Said jeep was insured for period from 05/03/2007 to 04/03/2008 and premium of Rs,15,158/- was already paid to the insurance company through its Karad Branch.  Insurance company declared the value of the vehicle for Rs.4 Lakh.  It so happened that complainant was going to Goa with his family, when in the midnight said jeep was stolen and therefore, complainant after trying to trace out the jeep for sometime, lodged a complaint with Kalangut Police Station and police registered the offence in respect of said crime.  Complainant demanded an amount of Rs. 4 lakh being an insurance amount by lodging insurance claim.  Insurance company however repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no contract between the complainant and insurance company.  The claim was thus repudiated on 10/09/2008 and therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint claiming an amount of Rs.4lakhs with interest @ 12 % p.a. and also claimed Rs.10,000/- for mental torture and Rs.2,500/- towards costs of proceedings.

  Opp.party/insurance company filed written statement which is at exhibit-10 and denied the allegations made by the complainant.  It denied that it had received letter from the complainant to transfer the vehicle in his name.  It denied that it had told the complainant that after RTO registers his name in R.C.book as registered owner then only they would transfer the policy purchased by Mr.Kiran Dange in his favour.  However, insurance company admitted that jeep no. MH-09-3870 was insured under policy no.171702/31/06/01/00023312 for the period from 05/03/2007 to 04/03/2008.  It was insured by Mr.Kiran Dange, resident of Kasegaon District Sangli as per R.T.O.record.  Said vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant/ Mr.Prshant Pise.  However, insurance company pleaded that till the vehicle was stolen the complainant had not filed the application with the insurance company informing him that he had purchased a vehicle from Mr.Kiran Dange and that vehicle is transferred in his name and he be issued a fresh policy in his name deleting name of Mr.Kiran Dange.  Therefore, insurance company pleaded that there was no relationship of insured and insurer between the complainant and opp.party on the date of theft of vehicle.  Thus it pleaded that complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from it.  They prayed that complaint should be dismissed with costs.

        On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 65. In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court held that    

“ liability of insurance company to damage to the vehicle would arise only when the transferee intimated the transfer of vehicle and requested the insurance company to transfer the insurance policy.  Policy was not transferred and the vehicle was damaged in accident, whether the transferee was entitled to be indemnified by the insurer for the damage to vehicle”.  Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly laid down  that fiction of Section 157 is limited to third party risk and transferee is not a third party qua the vehicle.  In para 10 of said judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations:

“      There can be no doubt that the said Chapter provides for compulsory insurance of vehicles to cover third party risks.  Section 146 forbids the use of a vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of that Chapter.  Any breach of this provision may attract penal action.  In the case of property, the coverage extends to property of a third party, i.e. a person other than the insured.  This is clear from Section147 (1)(b) (i) which clearly refers to damage to any property of a third party and not damage to the property of the insured himself.  And the limit of liability fixed for damage to property of a third party is rupees six thousand only as pointed out earlier.  That is why even the Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 is invested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damage to any property of a third party so arising, or both.  Here also it is restricted to damage to third party property and not the property of the insured.  Thus, the entire Chapter XI of the New Act concerns third party risks only.  It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third party risks since      section 146 prohibits the use of motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of chapter XI.  Thus, the requirements of that Chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the new Act must be limited thereto.  The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form No.51 prescribed under rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks.  Since the provisions under the new Act and the old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaiah’s case, 1986 ACJ 1 (AP), because the transferee-insured could not be said to be third party qua the vehicle in question.  It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the new Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whim the motor vehicle is transferred.”  If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage cause to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the new Act and in the realm of the contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle.  In the present case, since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle.  The view taken by the National Commission is therefore, correct.”                        

        In the instant case it is pertinent to note that the complainant had not applied for transfer of vehicle in his name till the date of theft of vehicle in question.  He informed the insurance company only after his Qualis jeep was stolen away between the night of 12/11/2007 to 13/11/2007 at Goa.  The repudiation letter of the insurance company/ respondent herein clearly stated that above vehicle was insured with their company for the period from 05/03/2007 to 04/03/2008 vide policy no.171702/31/06/01/00023312 as a new vehicle in the name of one Kiran Sarjerao Dange r/o Kasegaon, Dist- Sangli.  As per R.T.O. record the original insured Mr.Kiran Dange has transferred the said vehicle to you and you have become the registered owner w.e.f. 24/10/2007.  However, this fact of transfer was not communicated to them till the date of claim of theft.  So, the insurable interest was not transferred and thus, there was no relationship of insured-insurer between the complainant and insurance company on the date of theft i.e. on 12/11/2007 and therefore, the complainant was not the insured as there was no contract of insurance.  So, the repudiation letter itself is self eloquent to inform the complainant that his claim was repudiated by the insurance company.

        What is pertinent to note is the fact that in the case of transfer of vehicle from one person to another the transferee has to apply for the same within period of 14 days to the insurance company to get the vehicle transferred in his favour. This is laid down in Section 157 (2) if Motor Vehcile Act.  Thus, law requires that as soon as there is change in respect of any insured vehicle from one person to another person, the person who has purchased the vehicle is duty bound to inform the insurance company in a prescribed proforma within period of 14 days that he has purchased the vehicle from the previous policy holder and that his name should be recorded in the certificate of insurance and in the policy as registered owner.  Unless this is done there is no question of insurance company being held liable for a claim such was made by the complainant with insurance company.

 So, ultimately, we are finding that repudiation of the claim by respondent/insurance company by its letter mentioned, supra was correct one and so also the complaint is rightly dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Satara because on the date when vehicle in question was stolen away, the name of the appellant was not recorded as registered owner in the insurance certificate or in the policy in question.  On that ground repudiation made by the insurance company was proper.  We find that complaint is rightly dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Satara.  There is no substance in the appeal.  As such, we pass the following order:-

                                        :-ORDER-:     

1.           Appeal stands dismissed.

2.           No order as to costs.

3.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.

Nbh