http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 550 of 2008

PETITIONER:

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd

RESPONDENT:

Ram Prakash Raturi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2008

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2008

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24307 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (in short ’National Commission’) in Revision Petition

No.330 of 2005. By the impugned order, the revision petition

was dismissed.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent lodged a claim with the appellant claiming

compensation for damages caused to the vehicle No.UP 07/A-

0234. It was stated that the same was an Ambassador Taxi.

The claim was repudiated by the appellant primarily on the

ground that the policy of insurance was issued in the name of

Smt. Roopa Sharma C/o Abdul Gaffar, 31/1, Muslim Colony,

Dehradun, therefore, such claim was not entertained. Dispute

was raised before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (for

short ’District Forum’). Claim was made for Rs.42,000/-. In

the claim petition it was stated that the vehicle in question

was purchased from Smt. Roopa Sharma and due registration

was made by RTO, Dehradun and the appellant was duly

informed about the transfer. The premium was received and

insurance coverage was granted for the period from 16.9.1999

to 15.9.2000. It was stated that relevant documents were

produced before the appellant and notwithstanding the

knowledge about the transfer of the ownership, the claim was

rejected. The appellant filed objections to the claim petition

and took the stand that the policy was in respect of own

damage. The vehicle which was the subject matter of

insurance stood in the name of Smt. Roopa Sharma.

Therefore, in the absence of transfer of ownership or any

information in that regard, the insurance company was not

required to liquidate the claim.

District Forum was of the view that the insurance

company was liable to pay Rs.29,535/- towards the damages

of complainant’s vehicle. He was also entitled to interest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

@10% after 27.7.2000 i.e. the date of rejection of the claim and

from 1.8.2000 till the payment to the complainant.

Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation

expenses were also awarded as payable. An appeal was

preferred before the State Commission Consumer Protection,

Uttaranchal (in short ’State Commission’). The appeal was

partly allowed and the award of compensation was deleted.

But it was held that since the vehicle was the subject matter of

insurance, it was immaterial as to whether there was any

transfer of ownership. A revision petition was filed before the

National Commission, which as noted above, dismissed the

revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

National Commission failed to take notice of several aspects.

Firstly, in the notice issued by Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate on

behalf of Shri Abdul Gaffar, an affidavit was filed where the

respondent no.1 had clearly stated that he had no objection if

the payment of amount for the accident claim of the vehicle is

given to Smt. Roopa Sharma. This notice was issued on

17.11.2000. On 12.7.2001 another notice was issued on

behalf of Ram Prakash Raturi, the respondent herein wherein

it was stated that the said Ram Prakash Raturi was the

registered owner of the vehicle which had been purchased by

him from Smt. Roopa Sharma and the necessary changes to

the effect in the records of RTO, Dehradun were made and

endorsement to this effect was also made in the registration

certificate of the aforesaid vehicle on 17.2.1995. It was stated

that after verification of several documents cover note