ORDER
(Passed this on-06th December, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. The complainants have alleged deficiency in service against Opposite Party, United India Insurance Company for repudiating the claim.
02. The complainant No.-2 was the registered owner of INDICA VISTA car bearing No.-MH-31-CS-7991. The car was insured with the O.P. for the period from 14.10.2010 to 13.10.2011 for I.D.V. Rs.-3,14,100/-. It was hypothecated with the State Bank of India. The car was later sold to the complainant No.-1 on 03.06.2011. The complainant No.-1 applied for transfer of the car to the R.T.O. on 3.10.2011. On the same date the O.P. was asked for transfer of insurance of the car. But he was told that till the car was transferred in the name of the complainant No.-1, insurance would not be transferred. According to the complainants the car was transferred in the name of the complainant No.-1 on 03.10.2011 vide approval letter dated 07.10.2011. The said car was stolen on 06.10.2011. Intimation was given to the O.P. on 10.10.2011. There was deemed transfer of insurance policy in favour of the complainant No.-1 from 03.10.2011. Since the car could not be traced out, the complainant No.-1 made insurance claim to the O.P. However, the O.P. illegally refused the claim on the ground that on the date of theft of the car the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant No.-1 and there existed no insurance contract between the complainant No. -1 and the O.P. Terming refusal of the claim as deficiency in service, the complainants have claimed I.D.V. Rs.-3,14,100/- with interest and compensation and cost.
03. The O.P. filed its written version and admitted insurance policy of the car for the period mentioned in the complaint. It is also admitted that the car was sold to the complainant No.-1 on 03.06.2011. It is also admitted that on 03.10.2011 the complainant No.-1 applied to R.T.O. for transfer of the car in his name. But it is denied that on the same day he asked the OP for transfer of insurance policy. The OP was informed about theft on 10.10.2011 and on 01.11.2011 claim form was submitted. Since no application for transfer of policy was made, it is denied that the insurance was deemed to have been transferred on 03.10.2011. The claim is not payable to even the complainant No.-2 also as he was not the owner of the car at the time of theft. The complaint has thus no substance, hence it is urged to dismiss the same.
04. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused averments, documents and affidavit. We record our findings and reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. The complainants have relied on the Section-157 of the Motor Vehicle Act to press their contention of deemed transfer of insurance. Admittedly the car was sold to the complainant No.-1 on 03.06.2011 during subsistence of the policy. It was stolen on 06.10.2011. On this date the complainant No.-2 was not its owner. It is the case of the complainants that on 03.10.2011 i.e. prior to theft, application was made to the R.T.O. for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant No.-1 and it was transferred on the same date vide approval letter dated- 07.10.2011 of R.T.O. Though approval letter was of later date the application being of earlier date, the car was deemed to have been transferred on 03.10.2011 and its insurance policy was also deemed to have been transferred on the same date as per Section- 157 of the M.V. Act.
06. We have perused the letter dated 07.10.2011 for transfer of ownership of the car. It does not bear any seal or signature of any authority of R.T.O. A word APPROVED is typed on it. It does not even show that it was given to R.T.O. on 03.10.2011 as alleged by the complainants. Therefore it appears that the application of transfer of the car was given next day of the theft. The complainants have wrongly stated that the insurance policy was required to be transferred within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership and for that purpose the car was required to be taken to the insurer for verification. But as it was stolen, intimation was given to the O.P. on 10.10.2011. but vide deeming provision of Sec.-157 of the M.V. Act insurance stood transferred on 03.10.2011. This is altogether wrong submission. Section- 50 prescribes only procedure for transfer of a vehicle and it nowhere suggests that as soon as a transfer application is made, insurance of the vehicle shall stands transferred on the very date. Section-157 of the M.V. Act provides deemed transfer of insurance certificate of the vehicle on the date when ownership of the vehicle is transferred by complying the procedure prescribed u/s- 50 of the M.V. Act. There are some requirements, like payment of fees, which are to be complied with before a vehicle stands transferred. This has not been done or at least not shown to have been done. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the car was transferred in the name of the complainant No.-1 on 03.10.2011. Unless it is transferred, insurance of the car does not get automatically transferred. The deeming provision of Sec.-157 of the M.V. Act can only be pressed into service when ownership of a vehicle is transferred.
07. The claim was made by the complainant No.-1 only on 01.01.2011. On that date the insurance policy existed between the complainant No.-2 and the O.P. and it was not transferred in the name of the complainant No.-1. There was no insurance contract between the complainant No.-1 and the O.P. the complainant No.-2 had already sold the car and was not its owner and no transfer of policy was done. Under such circumstances the O.P. was right in refusing to grant the claim to either of the complainants. The present dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of the State Commission in Reliance General Ins. Co. v/s Mr. Ramakant Rajgire F.A. No. A/826/2009 State Commission, Nagpur decided on 19.12.2014.
08. In the result, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
2.
