Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT, MISS. HEENA THAKKAR, D.K. PODDAR, NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBERS
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company - Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Sahu - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/14/641
Decided on : 14-05-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepak Diwan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the new owner of a vehicle must inform the insurance company about the transfer of ownership and get the insurance policy transferred in their name to be eligible for claim, and the concept of insurable interest is crucial in determining entitlement to compensation.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 157; Sale of Goods Act - [Section 157, Sale of Goods Act] - The court discussed the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the requirement for the new owner to make a prayer for change in the name of the insured in the insurance policy, and the concept of insurable interest. The court relied on previous judgments to establish that the new owner must inform the insurance company about the transfer of ownership and get the insurance policy transferred in their name to be eligible for claim.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, the registered owner of a truck, filed a complaint against the appellant (Insurance Company) for repudiating his claim after an accident, claiming that he had sold the vehicle to another person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had indeed sold the vehicle to another person and had relinquished his ownership over the vehicle, thereby losing his insurable interest in the vehicle. The court concluded that the appellant had rightly repudiated the claim and had not committed any deficiency in service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent, after selling the vehicle, still had an insurable interest and was entitled to claim compensation from the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the new owner must inform the insurance company about the transfer of ownership and get the insurance policy transferred in their name to be eligible for claim. The concept of insurable interest was crucial in determining the respondent's entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the District Forum's order and dismissed the respondent's complaint, ruling in favor of the appellant (Insurance Company).
ORDER :
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President Member-This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.7.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur C.G). (henceforth “District Forum” for short), in Complaint Case No. 126/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 4,20,750 within a period of one month to the respondent (complainant) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint i.e. 3.4.2012 till realisation. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs. 2,000 Advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) Vinod Kumar Sahu is registered owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No. C.G.04-JB-0965 and he obtained insurance policy from the appellant (O.P.) (Insurance Company for the said vehicle. On 3.11.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident near Pali, District Korba (C.G.). The matter was reported in Police Station, Pali, District Korba (C.G.) on 3.11.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. itself. The respondent (complainant) submitted his claim before the appellant (O.P.) but the appellant (O.P.) repudiated claim of the respondent (complainant) hence the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that the respondent (complainant) is not a consumer and the appellant (O.P.) is not a service provider. The respondent (complainant) had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question because he had sold the vehicle to one Shri Baldev Singh vide agreement dated 21.10.2010. Shri Baldev Singh had submitted claim in respect of the vehicle in question before the appellant (O.P.) for compensation. Shri Baldev Singh is not registered owner of the vehicle and he was not insured and was not authorized to lodge any claim, therefore, he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question because the respondent (complainant) had sold the vehicle, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is also not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.) because he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question and the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) and it did not commit any deficiency in service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Document No. 1 is Power of Attorney, Document No. 2 is Certificate of Registration, Document No. 3 is Fitness Certificate, Document No. 4 is Goods Vehicle Driving Licence, Document No. 5 is Driving Licence, Document No. 6 is First Information Report, Document 7 is Policy Cover Note, Document No. 8 is Motor Insurance Claim Form, Document No. 9 is Discharge Voucher, Document No. 10 is Estimate of Joginder Singh Motor Repairing Workshop, Raipur (C.G.), Document No. 11 is letter dated 31.1.2012 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to Shri Baldev Singh, Document No. 12 is legal notice dated 11.2.2012 sent by Shri Manish Shrivastava on behalf of Shir Baldev Singh, Document No. 13 is postal receipt, Document No. 14 is letter dated 15.3.2012 sent by Shri Manish Shrivatava, Advocate to Sub-Post Master, Kutchery Post Office, Raipur (C.G.). Annexure 1 is vehicles details, vehicle ownership details issued by Chhattisgarh Transport Department.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed document. Annexure OP 1 is Smart Motor Commer
