Budhi Prakash Jain vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1789 of 2011 - Budhi Prakash Jain Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. by which, while allowing appeal of OP, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that owner of car Mr. Rajeev Sharma got it insured from OP/respondent for a period from 30.5.2004 to 29.5.2005. Rajeev Sharma sold this car to M/s. Hindustan Auto House under an exchange scheme and M/s. Hindustan Auto House sold this car to complainant/petitioner and registration certificate of car was transferred in the name of the complainant on 19.1.2005. Car met with an accident on 20.1.2005. On 27.1.2005, complainant intimated to Insurance Company about accident and also requested for transfer of insurance policy in his name. OP deputed surveyor, but later on repudiated claim for want of privity of contract. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there was no insurance contract between complainant and OP on the date of accident. It was further submitted that information dated 27.1.2005 is forged one. As per GR 17, complainant has not applied for transfer of insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 1,73,352/ - with 10% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/ - as litigation expenses. Both parties filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal of OP and dismissed complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER has filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that time was taken in seeking opinion from its law Department; so, delay of 42 days may be condoned. Petitioner is individual person and there was no question of obtaining opinion from its law Department and in such circumstances, reason for condonation of delay is apparently not correct, but as there is delay of only 35 days as per office report in filing revision petition, I deem it appropriate to condone delay of 35 days in the interest of justice.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of intimation to Insurance Co. for transfer of insurance policy within prescribed 14 days, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; though, rightly allowed by District forum; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. It is not disputed that complainant purchased car and registration certificate was transferred in his name on 19.1.2005 and vehicle met with an accident on 20.1.2005. Complainant by letter dated 27.1.2005 intimated to OP about accident and by another simple letter requested OP to transfer insurance policy in his name. Section 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act provides that transferee should apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance policy. GR 17 which is applicable from 30.6.2002 regarding transfer of insurance policy runs as under: "GR.17. Transfers

On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.

In case of Package Policies, transfer of the "Own Damage" section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee''s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.

A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.

Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs. 50/ - is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued."

Perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to apply for transfer of insurance policy in the prescribed form along with requisite documents regarding details of registration of vehicle, date of transfer of vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company and fresh proposal form along with necessary fees. Complainant has not placed on record copy of any such duly filled form along with necessary enclosures submitted to the OP and learned State Commission has rightly observed that complainant intimated OP through a simple letter for transfer of insurance policy without completing any formalities. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not aware about formalities and OP should have asked complainant to complete all the formalities. This argument is devoid of force because as per law it was obligatory on the part of complainant to submit duly filled form along with necessary documents and fees for transfer of insurance policy. As he failed to submit duly filled form, merely on the basis of simple request to OP for transfer of insurance policy in the name of complainant, it cannot be presumed that complainant has fulfilled requirement of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and in such circumstances, it can be held that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 1982 - G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in which order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding grant of compensation was upheld, as local representatives of victims cannot be denied compensation by the Insurance Company on the ground that policy was not transferred in the name of transferee. This judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the case in hand complainant is claiming compensation for damages caused to his own vehicle for which as per Section 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act insurance policy was required to be transferred in complainant''s name through proper application made within 14 days from the date of registration.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.