Aftab Khatib vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.10.2012, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 24/12, M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aftab Khatib, vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order dated 9.8.2012 in Mr. Colaco, whereas the vehicle was in the name of the petitioner and hence, the claim was not payable. The complainant/petitioner then filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting that the OP should be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,399 along with interest @18% p.a. from 19.8.2009 till realization, and a sum of Rs. 5,000 be given for litigation cost. The damages for the period of delay by way of interest should also be given. The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,399 along with interest @9% p.a. with effect from 19.8.2009 and also awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,000. However, an appeal made against this order was allowed by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The State Commission placed reliance on certain judgments, passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission and concluded that the insurer had no liability towards the complainant as the latter had no insurance policy issued in his name. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of arguments at admission stage before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle had been duly purchased by him from the original owner and then got transferred to his name by following the required procedure. The insurance policy should be deemed to have been transferred in his name, once the ownership was transferred, and hence the Insurance Company was liable to pay the claim to him. The learned Counsel stated that the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law and should be upheld. However, the order passed by the State Commission did not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts on record and the legal position.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner purchased the vehicle from its original owner and then got it transferred in his name from the concerned RTO, after following the prescribed procedure. It is also admitted that when the proceedings for transfer of the registration certificate from the RTO were in progress, the previous insurance policy in favour of the original owner expired. The present petitioner got the said policy renewed in the name of the original owner. He has also admitted that he never applied for the change of insurance policy in his name. It is clear, therefore, that at the time of accident, the Insurance Policy was in the name of the original owner only. As stated by the petitioner, he purchased the said vehicle from the original owner on 4.7.2008 and a copy of the document stating the factum of sale is available on record. The petitioner, when asked, was not able to provide any explanation as to how he could get the Policy renewed in the name of the original owner, once he had purchased the said vehicle. In fact, he had no authority to get the Policy renewed, because the vehicle was no longer with the original owner at that time and hence, his action in getting the policy renewed is not in accordance with law.

FURTHER , the State Commission have rightly placed reliance on the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited, : I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) : II (1996) ACC 536 (SC) : I (1996) CLT 22 (SC) : (1996) 1 SCC 221 and the National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.V. Deenadayal & Anr.,, (2009) STPL (CL) 2874 NC. It has been held in these orders that under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the certificate of insurance shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred, but the said provision was applicable only in relation to third party risk and did not apply to the policy, covering risk of damage to the vehicle or person of the insured. It has been clearly laid down in Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance. In the present case, the petitioner himself stated that he never made such an application. In the light of these facts admitted by the petitioner, it is very clear that the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of claim in favour of the petitioner/complainant because the insurance policy does not stand to his name. We, therefore, observe that the State Commission have made no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. The said order is, therefore, upheld and the present petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.