DIDAR SINGH vs RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1260 of 2010 - Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Didar Singh and Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 was owner of truck/trolla No. PB - 10 -AT -4479, who purchased it after taking loan from the Bank. Complainant No. 1 sold trolla to Complainant No. 2/Petitioner No. 2. The registration of vehicle could not be transferred in his name due to outstanding loan. Vehicle was got insured from OP/respondent for a period of one year from 6.9.2007 to 5.9.2008. Vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 7/8.7.2008 and FIR was lodged on 8.7.2008, but vehicle was not traced. Claim submitted to the OP was repudiated on the ground that Major Singh had no insurable interest on the date of theft. Alleging deficiency on part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent resisted complaint and submitted that as there was no privity of contract between Major Singh and OP and original owner Didar Singh had transferred the vehicle to Major Singh without any intimation to the OP, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 4,50,000/ - with interest to Major Singh. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

AS there was delay of only 7 days in filing revision petition, we allow the application for condonation of delay for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay stands condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of outstanding loan, vehicle could not have been transferred in the name of purchaser inspite of sale of the vehicle before theft and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted. It is admitted fact that Didar Singh purchased vehicle and transferred it to Major Singh and intimation of transfer was not given by both the complainants to OP. It is admitted fact that vehicle was not transferred in the name of Major Singh after sale of vehicle by Didar Singh to Major Singh. Vehicle was stolen from the custody of Major Singh, Major Singh had no insurable interest on the date of theft and learned State Commission rightly observed as under: ''''15. Admitted facts are that respondent no.1 Didar Singh sold thevehicle in question to respondent no.2 and handed over the possession, but the insurance policy remained in the name of respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 was also delivered the physical possession and he lodged the FIR Ex.C -4 regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. The appellant got the matter investigated and the investigator gave the report Ex.R -6 and after investigation, concluded that the vehicle was purchased by Major Singh from the insured, but the insured did not get transferred the insurance cover in the name of said Major Singh. The vehicle was stolen from village Benra and Major Singh only lodged the FIR and the theft was established. The investigator also recorded the statements and he produced the copy of the agreement Ex.R -7 vide which respondent no.1 has sold the truck in question to respondent no.2. Ex.R -8 is the receipt vide which he received the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs. Ex.R -9 to Ex.R -11 are the statements which further prove that the vehicle was sold and its possession was handed over by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2. The insurance remained in the name of respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 never intimated to the appellant about the transfer of the vehicle to respondent no.2. The handing over of the possession amounts to sale and it was obligatory on the part of respondent no.1 to intimate the appellant insurance company to get the insurance transferred in the name of respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions contained U/s 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR -17 of India Motor Tariff as per which certificate of insurance has to be transferred in the name of the purchaser. GR -17 provides as follows: - GR -17: Transfers: The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date oftransfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration ofthe vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous ownerof the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy, so that the insurer may make the necessary chargesin his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.

The Hon ''ble National Commission in similar circumstances in case ''''Om Parkash Sharma Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors. '''', 2009(1)CLT -29 (NC) observed in Para 3 as follows: - ''''As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service. ''''

In view of the above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the provisions of 157 of Motor Vehicle Act which are also on the same lines as that of GR -17 have not been complied with in the present case and the impugned order under appeal is against the law and is not sustainable ''''.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.