1.      The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 17/114 in which order dated 29.08.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 204 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/17/114 and Opposite Party before the District Forum in Complaint No. 204/2015.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 11.05.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments on 11.10.2023 (Petitioner) and 13.10.2023 (Respondent). Parties also filed documents/compilation of judgements in pursuance to orders dated 12.04.2024 on 03.05.2024 and 16.04.2024 respectively.    

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i)        The Petitioner/Complainant purchased a second-hand Tata Indica Vista car (MH-09-BM-2763) from Mr. Pratap Annasahed Khutale on March 25, 2013, through Shaha Agency in Kolhapur. All documents were submitted to the R.T.O. office for the vehicle transfer, but due to mismanagement, the smart card was delayed due to which timely intimation to the Insurance Company was not done.

(ii)       On April 21, 2013, the car met with an accident on the Railway Bridge of Tamadalge, registered at Jaysingpur Police Station. The vehicle was insured under policy number 162800/31/12/01/0005669 with the insurance company. The Petitioner/Complainant filed a claim and submitted necessary documents, but the insurance company denied the claim, citing the insurance was not in the complainant's name at the time of accident.

(iii)     The complainant incurred costs of Rs.1,67,983/- at Marvelous Motors Pvt. Ltd. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. The complaint was timely filed within the legal limitation period. Upon repudiating the claim of the Petitioner/Complainant, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum and District Forum dismissed the complaint on 29.08.2016, and an appeal before the State Commission was also dismissed on 10.08.2017.

5.         Vide Order dated 29.08.2016, in the CC no. 204 of 2015 the District Commission found that neither the Registration Certificate nor in Insurance Policy, name of Petitioner/Complainant is registered/transferred when said vehicle met with an accident hence, the District Forum has rejected the complaint with cost.

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.08.2016 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 10.08.2017 in FA No. 17/114 has dismissed the appeal and observed that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, purchaser of vehicle is under obligation to apply for transfer of policy, in his name, so that necessary changes can be carried out. But in the present case it is seen that, thought Petitioner/Complainant applied for transfer of vehicle, he did not follow the provision and therefore, is not entitled to claim any compensation.

7.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

                          (i)       The State Commission and District Commission have failed to consider that to transfer the insurance it is required to intimate to the                            Insurance Co. within 14 days from the transfer of ownership. As per Section 157 (1) of M.V. Act, it is clearly mentioned that the ownership                             transferred with the transfer of ownership. Therefore Insurance Company cannot avoid its responsibility.

(ii)       The State Commission and District Commission have failed to consider that unless and until R.C. recorded in the name of the purchaser it cannot come in purview of “transfer”.

(iii)     The State Commission and District Commission have failed to consider that while implementing the law, the original objects and aims needs to be taken into consideration. Insurance Company has considered only their own benefit and not factual aspects.

(iv)      The State Commission and District Commission have failed to consider that today also Registration Certificates are not obtained in time. Public agitations are going on for the same.

8.         Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1       (i)        In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that he purchased a second hand four wheeler TATA Indica Visa Car from Mr. Pratap Annasahed Khutale on 25.03.2013. The transaction and process of transfer of the said vehicle were done through Shaha Agency, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. After completing the process, all the documents were completed and submitted in R.T.O office, Kolhapur. But due to mismanagement in the R.T.O Office, the petitioner could not get smart card on time and could not intimate the insurance company regarding the same.

(ii)       On 21.04.2013, the said vehicle met with an accident on Railway Bridge of Tamadalge and the incident was registered at Jaysingpur Police Station. The said vehicle was insured with Respondent Insurance Company vide policy no. 162800/31/12/01/0005669. The Petitioner left the vehicle for repair to dealer namely Marvelous Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner borne the cost of Rs.1,67,983/- for the repair. The Insurance Company had denied to pay the claim and intimated as “….At the time of accident the insurance was not in your name. Therefore you have not insurable interest in vehicle. Hence the claim is hereby repudiated….”. The total amount that was claimed by the petitioner is Rs. 2,17,983/- (including repair cost of Rs.1,67,983/-, Rs. 25,000/- as fine to repudiate the claim, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony)    

(iii)     In view of the foregoing, petitioner has relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited”, (2020) 18 SCC 224 in Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020 decided on 18.06.2020.

8.2       On the other hand Respondent contended that the petitioner did not apply for transfer of policy that stood in the name of the earlier owner. Hence, the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant he was not the consumer of the respondent insurance company and had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of the accident. The claim was therefore rightly repudiated and intimated to the petitioner on 31.01.2014. In view of the above, Respondent relied upon the following judgements:

(a)       United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bundela Singh Rajput in RP No. 3757 of 2006

(b)       New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar in RP No. 2118 of 2012

9.         The main reason for repudiation is that the petitioner herein did not intimate the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle in question and did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name. In this case, the vehicle in question was purchased on 25.03.2013 and he applied for transfer of RC to RTO on 29.03.2013. The accident took place on 21.04.2013. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the RC got transferred in his name on 12.06.2013 and hence he could not have got the insurance policy transferred in his name prior to that. He further contended that he applied for transfer within 5 days but the delay was on the part of the concerned registering authority. The Insurance Company on the other hand contends that the vehicle stood transferred in the name of petitioner on 25.03.2013 itself. Learned counsel for Insurance Company further contended that Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act is applicable in case of third party claim only. Learned counsel for Insurance Company also relied upon the provisions of GR 17.

10.       It was seen that none of the parties have filed copy of the repudiation letter before this Commission as part of the RP case file. Accordingly, while concluding the hearing on 12.04.2024, respondent Insurance Company was, interalia, directed to place on record copy of the repudiation letter dated 18.03.2014. The same was placed on record by the Insurance Company on 16.04.2024. A perusal of the said repudiation letter shows that the claim has been repudiated on account of two reasons (i) the subject policy was not in the name of the complainant as on the date of accident and (ii) the driving license of the complainant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not valid and effective on the date of accident i.e. 21.04.2013 and later on it was renewed on 20.05.2013 i.e. after the date of accident. Relevant extract of the repudiation letter is reproduced below.

“This has reference to your letter dated 25.02.2004 in respect of the above subject. We had taken up the matter with our Pune regional Office and in this context we have to inform you as under-

The subject policy was not in your name as on date of accident. So you were not Insured as per our Insurance Policy at the time of accident. Further, the Driving License of Mr. Basavraj Parappa Vyankatapur who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not valid and effective on the date of accident i.e. on 23.04.2013 and later on it was renewed on 20.05.2013, i.e. after the date of accident.

In view of the above we regret our inability to consider your claim and hereby repudiated the same which please note.”

11.       It is to be noted that the issue relating to the complainant/person driving the vehicle at the time of accident not having a valid and effective license was not pressed at all during the proceedings before this Commission and same is not seen even pressed during the proceedings before the fora below, which is evident from the orders of the State Commission and District Forum, which contain no reference at all to the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident not having a valid and effective license. The only issue pressed before this Commission as well as fora below was with respect to the complainant not having the insurance policy in his name as on the date of accident. Hence, the case is being examined only on one issue i.e. whether the respondent Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of the complainant not having the insurance policy in his name as on the date of accident.

12.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties in the light of various judgements of this Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the parties. In Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a person, in whose favour certificate of insurance has been issued, transfers to another person the ownership of motor vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate must be deemed to have been transferred in favour of person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred, with effect from the date of its transfer-transferee might, within 14 days from the said transfer, apply to the insurer for making requisite changes in certificate of insurance and insurance policy with regard to factum of transfer of insurance-transferee cannot refrain from applying for endorsement of transfer in insurance policy certificate when insurance covering third-party risk is mandatory for using a vehicle. In this case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under Section 2 (30) of the New Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, “owner” means the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. In Jaswinder Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 28825 of 2015 decided on 27.02.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to the transfer of the insurance policy. In this case also the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that on the date of the accident the insurance policy was not got transferred in the name of appellant therein. In this case, the appellant (the seller of the vehicle) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (Supra) had contended that under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there is deemed transfer of the insurance. The Insurance Company, relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations Private Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (1996) 1 SCC 221 had contended that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act has no application in case of own damages and is applicable only in case of third party liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswinder Singh (Supra), taking more of the fact that the decision in Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) was by a Bench of three Judges, have referred the issue of deemed transfer of insurance policy under Section 157 to a three Judges Bench.

13.       No doubt, in the present case, as on the date of the accident i.e. 21.04.2013, the RC has not been formally transferred in the name of the complainant/petitioner herein but it is also not in dispute that after the purchase of the said vehicle on 25.03.2013, within 5 days itself i.e. on 29.03.2013 and much before the date of the accident, the petitioner had already applied to the concerned authority for transfer of the RC in his name. The delay in transfer happened not on account of any fault on the part of the complainant but in the concerned authority. We see merit in the contention of the petitioner herein that without formal transfer of the RC in his name he could not have intimated/requested the Insurance Company for transfer of the insurance in his name. In this case as the RC was transferred in the name of the complainant on 12.06.2013 only, in view of the provisions of Section 2 (30) of Motor Vehicle Act and as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (Supra), as on the date of the accident i.e. 21.04.2013, the Complainant was not the owner of the vehicle. Hence, strictly speaking Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on this ground. However, it is to be noted that the facts of the case in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (Supra) are that the vehicle was not transferred even after more than 3 years of the purported sale agreement and on the date of the accident the registration of the vehicle was in the name of appellant (seller), insurance policy of the vehicle was in the name of appellant who had paid the premium in respect thereof, the permit of the vehicle was also in the name of appellant, there was absence of ‘no objection’ from the bank which had financed the vehicle, regarding transfer of the vehicle and appellant was paying instalments to the bank towards payment of loan taken for the purchase of the vehicle. However in the present case the complainant, who is a purchaser of the vehicle, had already applied for transfer to the Competent Authority much before the date of the accident and till he gets the RC in his name from the Competent Authority he could not have made a request to Insurance Company for transfer of insurance. It is to be noted that in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe (Supra) case, the original seller i.e. appellant in the said case was held to be entitled to insurance claim notwithstanding the sale agreement executed about three years prior to the date of accident. Hence, in such situations, subject to other conditions being met, Insurance Company cannot deny claim to both the seller and purchaser, if the purchaser is found not entitled to claim on account of RC not being in his name on the date of accident, then, the seller, in whose name the RC was there at the time of accident, would remain eligible for the claim, notwithstanding that he having sold the vehicle, may not have come forward to file the claim. In such situation, Insurance Company cannot take a plea that seller having sold the vehicle have no insurable intent even if RC continues to be in his name. 

14.       In view of the foregoing and keeping in view the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that ends of justice will be met if the claim of the petitioner herein is passed by the Insurance Company on non-standard basis @75% and we order accordingly. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission with directions to the respondent Insurance Company to pass the eligible claim on non-standard basis @75% and pay the same within two months from today along with interest @6% per annum with effect from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment. RP is disposed off accordingly.    

15.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.