STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/19/537 (Arising against the order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the D.F. Ratnagiri in CC/17/52)

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Manager In Charge A/2, E Ward, Ground Floor Game Station, Near S T Stand New Shahpuri, Kolhapur ...... Appellant/org.O.P. no.1 Versus

1.Mr.Sanjay Shankar Talwar ……Respondent/org.complainant R/at-1237, Godown Stop Nachne, Ratnagiri ………Respondent/org.OP no.2

2.Reshma Mohd S Khan

101, Gulistan Apartments Near Power House, Ratnagiri BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Sapna Bhuptani for appellant.

Advocate P.G.Parkar for respondent no.1.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.28/04/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated

27/03/2019 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Ratnagiri in consumer complaint no.CC/17/52.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. The Respondent no.2 was issued a certificate of motor vehicle along with the policy schedule for the vehicle bearing no.MH-08-H-8814 for Mahindra Max Pick up bearing Insurance Policy No.01000000000841069, which was valid from 21/09/2016 to 20/09/2017. The Respondent no.1 had purchased the said vehicle from Respondent no.2 on payment of Rs.3 lakhs on 24/03/2017. Within 4 days of the said purchase i.e. on 28/03/2017, the vehicle met with an accident.

3. The survey of the vehicle was conducted on 29/03/2017 and the monetary loss was quantified to the tune of Rs.1,70,109/-. But while the claim was being minutely scrutinized, it was discovered that the necessary and mandatory protocol of having the vehicle along with the Insurance policy transferred into the name of the new owner i.e. Respondent no.1 was not carried out. The claim was therefore repudiated by the appellants herein on 27/06/2017. Being aggrieved with the repudiation letter, the complainant had filed the complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Ratnagiri.

4. After hearing both the sides, the Ld.District Consumer Commission has allowed the consumer complaint directing the present appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,109/- towards the compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the accident i.e.28/03/2017 till the amount has been realized, along with compensation for mental agony Rs.5000/- and cost of litigation Rs.5000/- . Being aggrieved with the said order, the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-

5. The appellant contended in the grounds of appeal that the Ld.District Consumer Commission wrongly relied on the averment of the respondent no.1 that on intimation of the claim, the Insurance Co. should have brought about the effective transfer of the policy in the name of the respondent no.1.

6. The Ld. Forum failed to further comprehend that the protocol is to intimate the Appellants herein and seek the transfer of the vehicle from the name of Respondent no.2 to Respondent no.1 from this Appellants.

7. The Ld.Forum failed to take note that no steps were ever taken by the Respondent no.1 to inform this Appellant that the vehicle was sold by the Respondent no.2 to Respondent no.1.

8. The Ld.Forum failed to appreciate that on the face of the Policy itself it is mentioned that the Insurance policy is subject to All Indian Motor Tariff Endorsements IMT 2007.

9. The Ld.Forum erred in noting that while lodging the claim the transfer could have been effected by this Appellants.

10. The present appellants have prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the original consumer complaint may be dismissed with cost.

11. Perused the appeal memo, the documents annexed along with appeal memo, the impugned order and the citations placed on record.

12. The appeal was admitted and the notice was issued to the respondents. The respondent no.1 appeared. Heard argument of both the learned advocates. After hearing both the sides, we come to the conclusion that the following order is to be p