NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs A.S. TEWATOA

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.05.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 477/2008, "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A.S. Tewatia through its SPA Harjit Kaur", vide which, while dismissing the appeal in limini, the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the District Forum, Ropar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 283 of 11.12.2007, filed by the present respondent, was ordered to be dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent A.S. Tewatia was the owner of a Honda City car bearing Regn. No. HR-03-B-7949, which was sold by him to Harjit Kaur w/o Ishar Singh, but the insurance policy remained in the name of the previous owner A.S. Tewatia only. It is stated that the registration of the said car was also transferred in the name of Harjit Kaur. The said car met with an accident on 22.05.2002, when it was being driven by the son of Harjit Kaur. The matter was reported to the Police and FIR No. 65 dated 22.05.2002 was registered by them. An intimation about the incident was also given to the OP Insurance

Company and a claim was also lodged alongwith necessary documents. The said claim was, however, repudiated vide letter dated 29.10.2004 received on 10.11.2004 on the ground that Harjit Kaur had no insurable interest in the matter. The said Harjit Kaur filed the consumer complaint dated 08.11.2006, seeking directions to pay her claim of 2.5 lakh alongwith interest @12% p.a. and also to pay compensation of 1 lakh for mental harassment and 50,000/- as cost of litigation. The said complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing a written statement before the District Forum in which they stated that the insurance policy had been issued in the name of A.S. Tewatia and the risk was covered from 03.04.2002 to 02.04.2003. At the time of accident on 22.05.2002, the policy was in the name of A.S. Tewatia and in the registration document also, the name of A.S. Tewatia was there. The complainant Harjit Kaur had, therefore, no insurable interest in the matter and hence, the claim was not payable. It was also stated that the claim was barred by limitation.

The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties dismissed the complaint on 09.04.2007 on the ground that on the date of the accident, i.e., 22.05.2002, the complainant was neither the policy holder nor the registered owner. It has been observed in the order of the District Forum that as per the registration certificate, the car was transferred in her name only on 17.09.2002.

Being aggrieved against the said order, Harjit Kaur challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.06.2007 of the State Commission, in which it was stated that this dismissal would not come in the way of the original owner filing another consumer complaint. A fresh consumer complaint was then filed by the original owner A.S. Tewatia before the District Forum. Vide order dated 31.03.1998, the District Forum allowed the complaint, being aggrieved against which, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed in limini vide impugned order dated 30.05.2008, the Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company stated that the vehicle had been transferred by the complainant A.S. Tewatia to Harjit Kaur on 26.03.2002, but the Insurance Policy remained in his name, rather a new insurance policy was taken in the name of the original owner, valid from 03.04.2002 to 02.04.2003. At the time of the accident on 22.05.2002, since the complainant A.S. Tewatia did not remain owner of the vehicle, he had no insurable interest in the matter. The claim was earlier filed by the purchaser Harjit Kaur, but the same was dismissed on the ground that she had no insurable interest in the matter. The Ld. Counsel argued that in accordance with the India Motor Tariff Regulations, once a vehicle is sold, the insurance policy has to be got transferred in the name of the purchaser, after making application as per rules, in the case of own-damage policy.

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has referred to the order passed by the State Commission on 06.06.2007, saying that the complaint filed by the Harjit Kaur was dismissed as withdrawn by this order and he had filed the consumer complaint in question as the insurance policy was in his name. The claim had, therefore, been rightly allowed by the Consumer Fora below in favour of the complainant/respondent which was the original owner.

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

The main issue for consideration in the matter is whether the original owner of the vehicle A.S. Tewatia is entitled to the benefit of claim from the insurance policy on the ground that on the date of the accident, the ownership as well as the insurance policy was in his name. The matter has been considered in a number of judgments already made by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the National Commission. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent A.S. Tewatia reveals that he has categorically stated in the first two paragraphs of the complaint that Harjit Kaur had purchased the car from him and that she had applied for transfer of ownership in registration certificate and after the said transfer in her name, she had immediately informed the OP Insurance Company in this regard. In the original complaint dated 08.11.2006 filed by Harjit Kaur, the same facts have been stated categorically that she purchased the car, applied for change in registration and after the registration, informed the OPs. These statements made by the original owner and the purchaser make it clear that the car had been duly transferred to Harjit Kaur by A.S. Tewatia and hence, his insurable interest in the vehicle stood extinguished and hence, he is not entitled to get the claim under the policy.

In a recent order announced by this Commission on 16.08.2016 in RP No. 3216/2015, " Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sombir ", the matter has been thrashed out in detail, keeping in view the legal provisions on the subject. It has been brought out in the said order as follows:- " 17. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the order passed by the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case, "Madineni Kondaiah and Ors. etc. vs. Yaseen Fatima and Ors. " [I (1986) ACC 501], in which it has been stated as follows:-

"The transfer of vehicle is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary payment of price, and delivery of vehicle make the sale complete, and the title passes to the purchaser. The obligation to register the vehicle is for the purpose of controlling and regulating the movement of vehicles by the authorities under the Act and they do not stand in the way of passing title to the purchaser."

It is clear from the above view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the actual date of transfer of a vehicle is relevant for the purpose of deciding complaints in such cases and the purpose of carrying out change of name in the registration certificate is for controlling and regulating the movement of vehicles only. In the present case, since it has been admitted by the original owner as well as the purchaser that vehicle stood sold to Harjit Kaur, the insurable interest of the complainant ceased to exist.

Further, it has also been brought out in this very order that in the case of own-damage policies, it is obligatory for the purchaser to get the insurance policy transferred in his/her name after making proper application for the purpose within the specified time, alongwith the consent of the original policy holder. In the case of the third party claims, there is provision for deemed transfer under the Motor Vehicles Act, but for the own-damage policies, the policy has to be transferred in the name of the new owner by following the required procedure. In the present case, admittedly, the policy was in the name of the original owner on the date of the accident. However, it is also admitted that by that time, the vehicle had already been sold to Harjit Kaur, although the change in the registration book may or may not have taken place. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant is not entitled to get the claim, as he had no insurable interest in the said vehicle after selling the same to Harjit Kaur.

Based on the discussion above, it is evident that the orders passed by the consumer fora below do not reflect a correct appreciation of the law and fact on the issue. This revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint in question stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.