Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President, B.K. Taimni, Member
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Reeta – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2299 of 2005
Decided On : 20-10-2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin Gupta and Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of an insurance policy under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and GR.17 of the India Motor Tariff is not automatic and must be in compliance with specific conditions.
Headnote:
Insurance Policy - Transfer of Policy - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 157, India Motor Tariff GR.17
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a car and the insurance policy was transferred to the respondent after an accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the policy was not transferred in the name of the respondent at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy had not been transferred to the respondent at the time of the accident, and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the damages to the vehicle of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and GR.17 of the India Motor Tariff to conclude that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation as the policy was not transferred to the respondent at the time of the accident.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint, stating that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs, and any sum deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded with accrued interest.
ORDER :
Ashok Bhan, President
Oriental Insurance Company Limited-petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition against Order dated 04.05.2005 in Appeal No. 450 of 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:—
Respondent/complainant had purchased an old car bearing registration no. PB-23A-9499 from Shri Simranjeet Singh Mann. The said vehicle was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company for the period from 30.07.2002 to 29.07.2003. Registration Certificate of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the respondent on 10.07.2002. The car met with an accident on 15.10.2002 and own damage claim was lodged by the respondent. Petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no transfer of the insurance policy in the name of the respondent as he had not made any request for transfer of the policy in his favour. As a consequence, the policy continued to be in the name of the previous owner. Till transfer of the policy in the name of transferee, the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the loss caused to the vehicle of the transferee.
Subsequent to the accident, the policy was transferred in the name of the respondent on 29.10.2002.
3. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, respondent filed a Complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the Complaint placing reliance upon the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations, 2002 and a Judgment of State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, held that in the event of transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the transfer of the insurance to the new owner is deemed to be automatic.
4. Petitioner, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the District Forum by preferring an Appeal before the State Commission which has affirmed the decision of the District Forum. State Commission has distinguished the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Rajamani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Reported in Accident & Compensation Cases on CD Rom=1999 ACJ 943 (SC), Complete Insulations v. New India Assurance Company Limited, II (1996) ACC 536 (SC)=(1999) 3 SCC 754.
Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
5. Reliance placed by the Foras below on GR.10 is totally misplaced. GR.10 stood superceded by the subsequent India Motor Tariff w.e.f. 01.07.2002, which supercede the provisions of earlier India Motor Tariff, which had existence upto 30.06.2002. GR.17 of India Motor Tariff dated 01.07.2002 replaced GR.10 of the earlier India Motor Tariff.
GR-17 of India Motor Tariff dated 01.07.2002 reads as under:—
“GR.17. Transfers
On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance. In case of Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benef
