IMPORTANT POINT
Transferee of vehicle is required to apply for transfer of insurance policy in writing alongwith consent of previous owner of vehicle.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, “State Commission”) dated 13.9.2013 in first appeal No.591/2012 arising out of the order of the District Forum, Kasargod in consumer complaint No.163/2011.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Ford Figo car with registration No.KL-14/J 5467 was pre-owned by Shri Gopal Krishna Rao, who got it insured with the respondent insurance company with IDV Rs.5,09,318. The insurance policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 25.6.2010 to 24.6.2011. The complainant purchased said vehicle from the previous owner on 17.5.2011. The vehicle met with an accident on 9.6.2011 resulting in total damage. Intimation of the accident and damage was given to the police as well as insurance company. The insurance claim preferred by the complainant, however, was repudiated with following observations:

“On scrutiny of documents submitted by your good self it is observed that at the time of accident the insurance policy is in the name of Mr. Gopalkrishna Rao whereas the registration book of the vehicle is in your name.

Please note that as per All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should be existence of insurance interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss, in this claim there was no contact of insurance at the time of accident. In this circumstance, we are not liable under the policy terms and conditions in respect of the above loss, hence the claim is not admissible.”

3. Being aggrieved of repudiation of the insurance claim the complainant filed a consumer complaint.

4. The respondent/opposite party in the written statement admitted that vehicle was insured in the name of the previous owner Mr. Gopalkrishna Rao and its IDV was Rs.5,09,318/-. It was pleaded that despite of having purchased the vehicle the complainant failed to either inform the opposite party or get the insurance transfer in his name and, therefore, the complainant had no insurable interest in the subject vehicle and for this reason the insurance claim was repudiated.

5. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,62,000 alongwith 9% interest thereon form the date of filing of complaint till realization together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000. It was ordered that if the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the interest payable shall be 12% from the date of the complaint till realization.

6. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal and the State Commission after nothing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 1 SCC 221 as also the judgment in the case of G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 754 held that there being no transfer of policy in the name of the petitioner/ transferee he had no insurable interest in the vehicle and the respondent/opposite party had no liability to indemnify the complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it has been passed in utter disregard of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has tried to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Complete Insulation (supra) by contending that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and by way of the amendment the explanation was added to Section 157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Complete Insulation case was based upon the interpretation of unamended Section 157 and, therefore, it is not applicable to the facts of this case becaus