Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Inder Singh Mehta, President, Sunita Sharma, Member and R.K. Verma, Member
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited —Appellant
versus
Smt. Dhani —Respondent
First Appeal No.9 of 2019
Decided on 2.3.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Insurance – Appeal against order of State Commission – Facts on record indicates that vehicle in question met with an accident on 27.05.2017 while purchaser was driving the same – The letter Annexure C-9 was produced in evidence on 07.08.2018 by the complainant alongwith rejoinder and affidavit. Letter of intimation /communication taking necessary steps for transferring insurance certificate in favour of deceased to the appellant company was made on 03.03.2017. The appellant company did not object of such filing in evidence on 07.08.2018 or subsequent dates and letter Annexure C-9 remained un-rebutted in evidence on the record, which ipso facto discharges onus under Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no iota of evidence on record which could suggest that appellant company contested or stated that they have not received letter of communication/intimation Annexure C-9 till date – Thus , Once the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of deceased who was holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident the transfer of the vehicle in the policy was a mere formality in the instant case and it is deemed transfer in favour of deceased under section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Therefore, the appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed. [Paras 8 to 11]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President.—Instant appeal is arising from order dated 29.09.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Chamba, in Consumer Complaint No.14/2018 title Smt. Dhani Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company.
Brief facts of Case:
2. The husband of the complainant Sh. Mehboob Khan was the registered owner of vehicle No.HP-73-0774 which was insured with the opposite party. During the existence of the policy, vehicle met with an accident on 27.05.2017 and owner-cum-driver Mehboob Khan expired. It is pleaded that the opposite party was requested to settle the claim qua death of the owner-cum-driver Sh Mehboob Khan under Personal Accident Policy to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- but they failed to do so.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party is that the vehicle was insured in the name of one Sh. Chet Ram who had not approached and lodged any claim with the opposite party. The claim has been lodged by Sh. Mehboob Khan to whom the vehicle had been sold by Sh. Chet Ram. It is pleased that the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of husband of the complainant after sale of the vehicle which is in violation of section 50,157 of Motor Vehicles Act and General Rules 17 of Indian Motor Tariff. Only intimating qua own damage claim received from Sh. Chet Ram and as such, claim is not payable to the husband of the complainant.
4. Learned District Forum below allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of complaint, till realization. Apart from this Rs.15,000/- has been awarded as compensation besides litigation costs of Rs. 5000/-.
5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum, opposite party / appellant filed present appeal before State Commission on the ground that insurance of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Mehboob Khan which is in violation of section 50, 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and G.R. 17 of Indian Motor tariff.
6. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and we have also perused the entire record carefully.
7. During the course of arguments ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that on the date of accident there was no contract of insurance between the insurance company and the husband of complainant as the insurance policy is in the name of previous owner Sh. Chet Ram and relied upon the orders of Hon’ble National Commission in (i) Revision Petition No.728 of 2012 title Murlidhar versus National Insurance Company decided on 30.09.2016, (ii) Petition No.4576 of 2013 title Vijayan M Aingoth versus Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited decided on 08.12.2015, (iii) Revision Petition No.2176 of 2015 title United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Surender Kumar, (iv) Revision, Revision Petition No.2108 of 2017 title Sunil Dattatray Gaurav versus Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd decided on 01.11.2017 and order of H.P. Consumer Commission in First Appeal No.193 of 2009 title Jagat Singh Negi versus National Insurance Company Limited Decided on 20.08.2009. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent /complainant has argued that as per provision of section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, there is deemed transfer of insurance in the name of subsequent owner and complainant is liable to be indemnified by the insurer.
Findings
8. Facts on record indicates that vehicle in question met with an accident on 27.05.2017 while purchaser/Mehboob Khan was driving the same. As per Registration Certificate Annexure C-6, Mehboob Khan purchased the said vehicle on 28.02.2017 from Sh. Ramjan. Purchaser Mehboob Khan, in terms of the section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, applied for transfer of insurance policy on 03.03.2017, as per letter Annexure C-9 within three days, of the transfer of registration certificate in his favour. The letter Annexure C-9 was produ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
