MURLIDHAR S/o Shri Ramchandra Ji vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1459/2009, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Murlidhar, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, dated 23.07.2009, in Consumer Complaint No. 101/2009, allowing the complaint filed by the present petitioner, was set aside, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant stated in his consumer complaint that he was a driver by profession and that he purchased a Bolero SLX vehicle, bearing no. CG12D 9909 at Raipur (Chhattisgarh) from Markandey Prasad Chandra on 23.01.2009. The said vehicle was insured with the OP/respondent Insurance Company valid from 12.12.2008 till 21.04.2009. The complainant got the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name on 24.01.2009. Thereafter, he sent a request letter dated 28.01.2009 to the Insurance Company under postal cover UPC, requesting for the transfer of the insurance policy in his name. However, the said vehicle was stolen from his residence on 08.02.2009 midnight. The complainant reported the matter to the Insurance Company on phone as well as by personal visit and supplied documents to them on 06.03.2009 in support of the claim made by him. However, the Company refused to transfer the insurance policy in his name. The Insurance Company wrongly repudiated his claim, following which, he made the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 4,82,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant as well as a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation against mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

In the reply filed by the Insurance Company, it was denied that any letter dated 28.01.2009 was given by the complainant for the transfer of the vehicle. The Insurance Company stated that the claim could not be entertained as the vehicle was in the name of the previous owner.

The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs. 4,82,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant alongwith Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum took the plea that the complainant was entitled for the insurance benefits because according to India Motor Tariff Regulations, when the registration was transferred in the name of the claimant, he is eligible to get the benefits of the policy. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal, which was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order. The State Commission stated that the case law relied upon by the District Forum was not applicable in the present case, as the same was regarding the third party claims only.

Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had sent letter dated 28.01.2009 to the Insurance Company under postal certificate and hence, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to have allowed the change of the policy in his name. The learned counsel stated that after the purchase of the vehicle, he had already got it transferred in his name from the registering authority. He had already supplied the necessary documents to the Insurance Company and hence, the claim should have been paid to him.

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, stated that they never received any letter, requesting for the transfer of policy in the name of the respondent. The learned counsel stated that in the case of Own-Damage policies, there was no deemed transfer of policy in the name of the purchaser of the vehicle, and it was obligatory on a purchaser to get the policy transferred in his name, otherwise the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim in the absence of insurable interest on the part of the complainant.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The main point for consideration in the matter is whether the complainant is liable to get the claim in question, in view of the fact that the policy was never transferred in his name, after the purchase of the said vehicle. This matter has been examined in detail in many judgments given by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Commission in a number of cases from time to time. The matter is no more view of a recent judgement passed by this Commission res-integra in in Revision Petition No. 3216/2015, Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sombir, decided on 16.08.2016 . After discussing the provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, it has been concluded as follows:- " 12. A perusal of the GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations shows that the Liability Only Cover is deemed to have been transferred from the date of such transfer to a transferee, whereas for transfer of Own Damage Section of an insurance policy, a specific request has to be made by the transferee alongwith consent of transfer and a fresh proposal form has to be submitted with evidence of sale. It is evident that there is no deemed transfer in such cases but a duty has been cast upon the transferee to make appropriate application for the transfer of policy in his name. The natural implication of this provision is that a transferee has to apply to the insurance company within a period of 14 days of the transfer having been completed, failing which, he shall not be liable for payment of claim in the eventuality of such claim arising on account of any untoward incident."

It is amply made clear that in the case of Own Damage policy, there is no deemed transfer, but a proper application has to be made by the transferee within a period of 14 days from the date of transfer, alongwith consent of the previous owner of the vehicle. It has further been brought out in the said order that the factum of actual transfer of the vehicle has to be seen, while counting the period prescribed under GR-17 Regulations and of not the date of registration the vehicle. It has been stated as follows:- " 19. Based on the discussion above, it is amply made clear that under the provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff Regulations, the relevant date for making application to the insurer for the transfer of insurance policy is the date of actual transfer of the vehicle and not the date on which the change of name in the registration book was recorded by the concerned Transport Authority. As stated by the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh in "Madineni Kondaiah and Ors. vs. Yaseen Fatima & Ors." [supra] , the application to register a vehicle is only for the purpose of controlling and regulating the movement of vehicles by the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and it does not stand in the way of passing title to the purchaser."

The case of the petitioner/complainant in the present case is that the old vehicle was purchased by him on 23.01.2009 and the same was got registered from the Transport Authority the very next day i.e. 24.01.2009. It was their duty, therefore, to make application for the transfer of policy within 14 days of the date of actual transfer i.e. 23.01.2009, although they claimed that a letter was sent to the Insurance Company on 28.01.2009, under postal certificate. The Insurance Company denies having received any such letter. During the course of arguments, a specific question was asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether they had obtained any consent from the previous owner before making application for the transfer policy and whether he was in possession of forms 29 & 30 as prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which are the documents to show that the transfer actually took place between the parties. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner did not have any such documents. Even presuming the date of transfer to be 23.01.2009, it was the duty of the petitioner to have applied to the Insurance Company for transfer of policy, alongwith the necessary documents including the consent of the previous owner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the order passed by this Commission on 31.05.2016 in Revision Petition No. 3003/2008, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagmohan Trehan , saying that if the request of transfer of policy had been made within 14 days of the purchase of the vehicle, the Insurance Company could not repudiate the claim. The view taken in this judgment has no relevance to the present case, as the petitioner/complainant has not been able to prove that the application for transfer was duly made to the Insurance Company. He is, therefore, not liable to get the claim, because the policy stands in the name of the original owner, and hence, the petitioner/complainant does not have any insurable interest in the matter. The impugned order passed by the State Commission, therefore, reflects a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, which may merit any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.