Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President, Veena Misra and V.K. Patil, Members
DINESH KUMAR GOLECHHA - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
Appeal No. 135 of 2006
Decided on : 25-05-2009
Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. C.S. Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondent
The transferee cannot avail the benefits under the insurance policy without a change in the name of the insured in the policy, as established in the case law including M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Harinder Kaur, (2007) 3 CPJ 411 (NC).
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, Section 157(2), Motor Tariff Regulation - 10 - I.M.T. GR-17 - M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Harinder Kaur, (2007) 3 CPJ 411 (NC) - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash Gupta and Anr., (2009) 1 CPJ 183 (NC) - Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Sukhrania (Smt.) and Ors. - Vehicle Insurance Act Section 157(2), Motor Tariff Regulation - 10, I.M.T. GR-17 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Motor Tariff Regulation - 10, and I.M.T. GR-17, and referred to the case law including M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Harinder Kaur, (2007) 3 CPJ 411 (NC) to determine the liability of the insurance company and the entitlement of the transferee to the benefits of the insurance policy. The court emphasized the requirement of a change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy for the transferee to avail the benefits under the policy, as established in the case law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's vehicle was insured by the respondent under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy. After a transfer of the vehicle, a claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the registered owner did not have insurable interest in the vehicle and the vehicle was driven by a person without a valid license. The appellant contended that the claim was repudiated under an inapplicable provision and that he was entitled to the benefit of the policy under Motor Tariff Regulation - 10.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim was repudiated because the registered owner had transferred the vehicle without applying for a change in the name of the insured in the policy, as required by Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also noted that the appellant had not preferred any claim before the Insurance Company before filing the complaint.
Issues: The issues revolved around the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company, the applicability of the insurance policy to the transferee, and the requirement for a change in the name of the insured in the policy upon transfer of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transferee cannot avail the benefits under the insurance policy without a change in the name of the insured in the policy, as established in the case law including M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 586, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Harinder Kaur, (2007) 3 CPJ 411 (NC).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of the District Forum that there was no deficiency in service. The court also set aside the order imposing costs on the complainant.
ORDER
S.C. Vyas, President (Oral)- This appeal is directed against order dated 29.3.2006 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 64/2004, whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that no claim of the appellant has been disallowed or repudiated by the Insurance Company because no such claim was ever preferred, thus there was no deficiency in service. On this ground, the complaint has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that, vehicle No. CG-08-ZC-0178 was insured by the respondent for the period from 19.6.2003 to 18.6.2004 under Comprehensive Insurance Policy and in that policy the registered owner of the vehicle was shown as Dr. Tarachand Singhi. Later on, on 11.9.2003, the vehicle was transferred by the said Dr. Tarachand Singhi to the appellant herein. On 4.10.2003, the vehicle met with a road accident and was damaged. Claim was preferred before the Insurance Company. Surveyor was appointed. Thereafter the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company, on the ground that the registered owner was not having insurable interest in the vehicle and the vehicle was driven by a person not having a valid licence. Intimation regarding repudiation of claim was sent to the original owner Dr. Tarachand Singhi as aforesaid. Whereas the claim was preferred by the appellant herein and in this way, the Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service. It has also been pleaded in the complaint by the appellant that I.M.T. GR-17, under which the claim was repudiated was not applicable in the facts of the case. As there is no mention in the insurance policy in that regard and under Motor Tariff Regulation - 10 ,the complainant was entitled to get benefit of the policy.
3. The respondent, in the written version has specifically averred that the insured has preferred the claim, which was repudiated on the ground that he had already transferred the vehicle and no application for change of name of insured in the policy was moved. It was necessary under law that at the time of transfer of the vehicle, within 14 days application for transfer of policy should be made along with requisite fees forgetting the benefit of insurance. It has also been averred that the complainant/appellant herein had not preferred any claim before the Insurance Company.
4. Earlier, the complaint was decided by the District Forum vide its order dated 31.8.2004 and the appellant was awarded Rs. 1,37,463, by way of compensation. Both parties felt aggrieved by that order and preferred appeals before this Commission. Both those appeals have been decided by this Commission by a common order dated 15.12.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum, Rajnandgaon for consideration of some documents, which have been filed at the stage of hearing of appeal. Earlier impugned order was set aside. After remanding back the matter, learned District Forum again heard both parties and then passed impugned order holding that no deficiency in service is proved.
5. Learned Counsel for the appelling, during the rearing of this appeal has again filed copy of few documents. First document is letter written by the complainant/appellant to the Insurance Company on 4.4.2006 stating that he had earlier preferred a claim before the Insurance Company, which is still pending. A copy of the claim application (Annexure -2) has also been filed along with postal receipt and the acknowledgement. All these documents show that the claim has been preferred by the appellant herein when he had already in knowledge that his complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum, on the ground that no claim was preferred by the complainant/appellant. The date which has been shown in the claim application is 1.4.2006. On 4.4.2006 the same was delivered to the Postal Department and on 5.4.2006 it was received in the office of Insurance Company whereas the impugned order was alread
