2009(3) CPR 239
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BILASPUR
Mr. S.C. Vyas, President; Smt. Veena Misra and V.K. Patil, Members
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Mohd Rasheed Siddique —Respondent
Appeal No. 709 of 2006
Decided on 28.7.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri A.K. Rai, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
After transfer of the policy, the transferee has to get, insurance policy transferred in his own name for the purpose of claim, etc.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 15—Eicher Mini Truck purchased from owner—Accident—Claim for damages repudiated—Policy not transferred in purchaser’s name—Complaint on ground of deficiency in service.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 14—District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 46,599 with interest and costs.
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 15/17(a)(ii) —Appeal against Forum’s directions—Held: Complainant asked the insurer to transfer policy in his name within reasonable time. It could not take advantage of its own fault or lapse. Appeal dismissed.
Smt. Veena Misra, Member—This appeal is directed against order dated 10.11.06, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in complaint case No.28/06, whereby the complaint was allowed and the insurer was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,599 together with interest and cost to the complainant Aggrieved, the insurer has preferred the appeal under consideration.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had purchased an Eicher mini-truck No. CG-O4-G-1716. Insurance of the aforesaid truck was valid for the period from 7.10.03 to 0610.03. As per averments of the complaint, the truck purchased by complainant was in the name of Bhupendra Singh who had obtained finance for purchasing the truck from, Abdul Quadir. As Bhupendra Singh failed to repay the amount, Abdul Quadir had repossessed the same and subsequently sold it to the complainant. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant had intimated the insurer for transfer of policy in his name, but the prayer was not acceded to by the insurer. On 22.3.04, truck met with an accident and suffered damages and loss assessed by the surveyor was Rs. 46,955. The insurer vide letter dated 29.10.04, intimated that policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant subsequent to transfer of registration of the vehicle in complainant’s name, hence, no amount was payable. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the OP, the complaint was preferred.
3. As per averments of the written version, the complainant failed to get his policy transferred into his name within stipulated period, hence the OP insurer was not liable to make any payment to the complainant. It was further averred that by treating the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’ the insurer has not committed any deficiency in service.
4. As noted earlier, the District Forum allowed the complaint.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer submitted that the District Forum has erred in holding the appellant insurance company liable to pay compensation to the respondent because the appellant had not insured the respondent/complainant for indemnification against any loss to the vehicle in question. Policy, at the relevant time, was still in the name of Bhupendra Singh, who was previous owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the District Forum has erred in relying upon the provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which relate to third party liability. Learned District Forum should have considered GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff, according to which the own damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee (purchaser) shall transfer only on receipt of specific request from the transferee along with consent of transferor, within 15 days from the date of such transfer. He further submitted that liability of insurance company would arise only on transfer of policy in the name of the transferee. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the District Forum be set aside and the complaint be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant relied or Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Harinder Kaur2; Om Prakash Sharma v. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.3
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the complainant had entered into an agreement for purchase of the vehicle with Abdul Quadir who had earlier financed the vehicle to Bhupendra Singh, and as the financed amount was not paid, he had taken back the vehicle and agreed to sell the same to the complainant. Document in that regard is placed on record of the District Forum, at page No. 29. He submitted that this agreement was executed on 7.10.03 and delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant on the condition that remaining amount payable under the agreement will be paid when all the documents would be completed. On t