JAI PAL SINGH vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.6.2005 passed by the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar whereby the complaint of the complainants was dismissed.

THE facts in brief are that Jai Pal Singh, the appellant who is complainant No. 1 in this case purchased a motor-cycle Hero Honda from Mr. Bhoj Raj who is complainant No. 2 on 30.10.2003 for a sum of Rs. 31,000. THE vehicle was insured but the registration certificate and insurance policy were not transferred in the name of the transferee. While the registration certificate and the insurance policy were in the name of the original owner the motor-cycle in question was stolen away. THE report about the theft was lodged at the Police Station but as the vehicle and accused could not be traced by the police, the final report was filed. As the vehicle was insured against theft also, a claim was filed but the same was not accepted by the Insurance Co. and, therefore, the original owner and the purchaser, they both filed this complaint for getting the assured amount. THE non-applicants filed their reply wherein it was stated that at the time of theft the vehicle was in the name of Bhoj Raj and the insurance policy was also in the name of Bhoj Raj and, therefore, the purchaser Jai Pal Singh was not authorised to receive the claim. We have heard both the sides and gone through the file.

It is true that Jai Pal Singh who is the purchaser of vehicle had no privity of contract with the Insurance Co. and, therefore, he cannot claim any amount from the respondents. A similar matter also arose before the National Commission in the case of Banowari Lal Agrawalla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC), wherein it was held that the transferee in absence of insurance cover in his name cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Co. but as the cover stands in the name of original owner, it was held that the original owner could claim the damages from the Insurance Co. Even a period of limitation was also condoned looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. We may very profitably quote para 10 of the judgment : "Be that as it may, it has also been held that since it is the vehicle which is insured and that cover is not disputed, only question involved is who should have preferred the claim? As rightly interpreted above, the petitioner has got no locus to file this complaint as he was not the insured. The only flaw in this case is that the claim should have been filed by the original policy holder and not by the complainant purchaser of the vehicle. In this slightly technical situation, what could have been done was to have the complaint filed by the insured. Keeping in mind the principle of indemnification of loss by the insurers, in our view, this technically should not come in the way of the Insurance Co. honouring its part of the contract. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the claim before the respondent Insurance Co. be filed by the insured as per policy, within a period of 6 weeks of passing of this order upon which the respondent shall consider the case as per law. The time spent before the Consumer Forums in pursuing his remedy by way of filing this complaint, shall have to be condoned, as it appears that it was on account of some wrong advice that this procedure was initiated. Upon filing a complaint by the insured as per policy, the respondent shall sympathetically consider the claim in view of the report of the Surveyor which is on record and settle the claim as per terms of the policy expeditiously."

HERE in this case, since the original owner has also come on the record and has prayed for award of the assured amount, the complaint in his favour may be allowed. We have to see as to how much amount the complainant No. 2 is entitled to receive. The policy cover was for Rs. 37,000 but the vehicle was sold for a sum of Rs. 31,000. In our view the complainant No. 2 is entitled to get Rs. 31,000 from the respondent Insurance Co.

IN view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be accepted in favour of Mr. Bhoj Raj who is the complainant No. 2 in the complaint. We allow the appeal of Shri Bhoj Raj and set aside the judgment of the learned District Forum, Sri Ganganagar dated 21.6.2005 and direct the respondent Co. to pay a sum of Rs. 31,000 to the complainant Shri Bhoj Raj with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the complaint was filed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.