Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT & MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
PRAKASH RATHI - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/14/104
Decided On : 14-08-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sudipto Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D.L. Rathore, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining the insurable interest of the vehicle owner at the time of the incident and the reliance on the Surveyor's report for assessing compensation.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 157 - The court discussed Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the transfer of certificate of insurance and the obligations of the transferee. The court highlighted the importance of compliance with the provisions of Section 157 and its impact on the insurable interest of the vehicle owner at the time of the incident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's vehicle met with an accident, and the insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the appellant did not have insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident. The appellant filed a consumer complaint, which was initially allowed but later dismissed by the District Forum. The appellant appealed against the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had complied with the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and had insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident. The court also assessed the compensation based on the Surveyor's report and directed the insurance company to pay the appellant the determined amount.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the incident, compliance with Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the assessment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the importance of compliance with its provisions in establishing insurable interest. The court also emphasized the reliance on the Surveyor's report for assessing compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the impugned order of the District Forum was set aside. The insurance company was directed to pay a specified sum as compensation to the appellant within a stipulated time.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.460/2009. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that a light goods vehicle tata 207 bearing registration No.C.G.04-J.A-7501 was purchased by the appellant (complainant) and it was registered in the name of the appellant (complainant) on 08.02.2008 and within 14 days, an application was moved by the appellant (complainant) before the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) to change the name of the insured in the insurance policy. On 16.02.2008, the vehicle in question met with an accident. The matter was reported at Police Station Kaser, District Kanker (C.G.), where First Information Report No.12/08 was registered. The matter was also reported to the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) and the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) appointed Shri K.K. Shrivastava as Loss Assessor & Surveyor, who conducted spot survey and also inspected the vehicle in question and assessed the loss and thereafter he submitted his report before the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company). The appellant (complainant) submitted his claim before the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) for indemnification of the loss suffered by him to the tune of Rs.3,63,000/-, but the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) intimated the appellant (complainant) vide letter dated 31.07.2009 that there is no privity of contract between the appellant (complainant) and the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) and there was no insurable liability to be fastened on the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) and repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) had already moved an application before the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) for change of the name of the insured (complainant) in the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) committed deficiency in service in not indemnifying the loss suffered by the appellant (complainant), hence the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) filed its written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) appointed Mohd. Ibrahim and Shri S.K. Rangari, Advocate as Investigator. Mohd. Ibrahim submitted his report on 03.09.2009 before the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company), in which he mentioned that Shivam Motors had seized the vehicle in question from Shri Shankar Nayar, who is beneficiary and he had failed to deposit the amount of the installments regularly, hence the vehicle in question was seized by Shivam Motors and the vehicle was sold by Shivam Motors to the appellant (complainant) in the year 2007. The appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) regarding transfer of the vehicle to him and the vehicle in question was already insured in favour of Shri Shankar Nayar from 20.10.2007 to 19.10.2008. On the date of incident i.e. 16.02.2008, the appellant (complainant) was having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question and therefore, the appellant (complainant), is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company), therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant).
4. Earlier, the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.08.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent (O.P.) (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- to the appellant (complainant) on account of damages to the insured vehicle in a road accident and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.700/- as cost of litigation to the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.
