OMPRAKASH SINGH vs BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.07.2011, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur in First Appeal No. A/10/497, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.06.2010, passed by the District Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint no. 125/2010, allowing the said complaint was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of a Toyota Innova Car, which was insured by the respondent/the opposite party Insurance Company for Rs. 4,05,000/- under policy no. OG-10-1001-1801-00008000 for the period 10.06.2009 to 09.06.2010. As stated in the complaint, the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.07.2009, while being plied on Jabalpur-Nagpur Highway at 9.00 pm, when it dashed against a truck bearing no. MP-20-GA-0971, which was standing in the middle of the road. The vehicle was being driven by Ravi Singh Thakur at that time, who is stated to be the son-in-law of the complainant. The vehicle was severely damaged during the accident. An intimation about the accident was given to the police station at Buragy District Jabalpur as well as to the Insurance Company. It has been stated that the driver of the vehicle Ravi Singh Thakur had a driving licence valid upto 17.04.2018. The respondent Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the spot. The vehicle was then taken to M/s. Grace Toyota Company, which gave the estimate of repairs as Rs. 2,23,430/-. However, the respondent Insurance Company did not pay the bill for repairs to the Grace Toyota Company, due to which the vehicle remained parked at the premises of Grace Toyota Company for about six months. The respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, as he had sold the vehicle to his son-in-law, Ravi Singh Thakur on 28.11.2008 and an agreement to that effect was also made. However, the complainant took the stand that the said agreement dated 28.11.2008 had been cancelled on 13.03.2009 and hence, the vehicle was still under the ownership of the complainant and the same was reflected in the record of the Regional Transport Officer and the registration book. The possession of the vehicle was also with the complainant. The complainant filed a consumer complaint in question claiming a sum of Rs. 2,93,593/- from the opposite party, which included a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- as the car repair bill and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District forum in which they admitted that there was an insurance policy in the name of the complainant, but stated that on the date of the accident, the said vehicle was in the possession of Ravi Singh Thakur, who had purchased the same vide agreement dated 28.11.2008. The Insurance Company stated that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter and hence, was not entitled to get the insurance claim.

The District Forum decided the consumer complaint vide their order dated 19.06.2010 and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 2,23,430/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against this order, the respondent Insurance Company challenged the same by way of First Appeal No. A/10/497 before the State Commission, which allowed the same, vide impugned order dated 15.07.2011. The appeal was allowed saying that the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle in view of the sale agreement dated 26.11.2008 between himself and Ravi Singh Thakur. There was no question of cancellation of the sale agreement, because there was no mention that the amount of consideration had been returned to the owner of the vehicle. Since Ravi Singh Thakur was not the registered owner of the vehicle and had not got transferred the insurance policy in his name as on the date of accident, the complainant was not entitled to the said claim. The consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a copy of the sale agreement entered between the complainant and his son-in-law, Ravi Singh Thakur on 28.11.2008 was on record. A copy of another agreement entered between these two persons on 13.03.2009 vide which the sale agreement was cancelled, was also on record. The ownership of the vehicle was never transferred to Ravi Singh Thakur and hence, there was no question of transfer of insurance policy to him. It is also admitted that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by Ravi Singh Thakur, who happens to be the son-in-law of the complainant. The fact that the vehicle was being driven by the son-in-law of the complainant does not entitle the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim, as there is no bar on the vehicle being driven by any other person. The order passed by the District Forum was, therefore, in accordance with law and the same should be upheld. The observation by the State Commission that if the sale agreement had been cancelled, the vehicle should have been in the possession of the complainant and not son-in-law, is totally unfounded, because the son-in-law could have used the vehicle in natural course also. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, not in accordance with law.

The learned counsel for the respondent argued, however, that once a property had been transferred, there was no question of cancellation of the said agreement. The learned counsel stated that the purpose of carrying out transfer of name in the registration book was to satisfy the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act only. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 2012 of 2007, decided on 05.05.2011, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamal Tours & Travels , saying that since the vehicle had been sold to another person, there was no insurable interest of the complainant in the matter. Referring to the order passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 13 of 2013, Global Ispat Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company , decided on 10.09.2014, the learned counsel stated that the complaint was barred by limitation as it had not been filed within 12 months of the repudiation of the claim. In Revision Petition No. 1347/2008, decided on 03.09.2014, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bimlesh . It had been held that the ownership of the vehicle is transferred on the execution of the sale letter and the requirement of informing the registering authority is only a post-transfer statutory requirement. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dalip Kumar, IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC) , it has been held that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim if the policy had not been transferred to the transferee. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

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 this case is whether at the time of accident of the vehicle, the complainant had any insurable interest in the matter or not. It is an admitted fact that at the time of accident on 15.07.2009, the vehicle was being driven by Ravi Singh Thakur who happens to be the son-in-law of the complainant. It is also admitted that on the date of the accident, the ownership of the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy was also in his name. It cannot be stated, therefore, by any stretch of imagination that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was sold to Ravi Singh Thakur by means on an agreement dated 23.11.2008. The said agreement is reported to have been cancelled on 13.03.2009 and a copy of the cancellation deed has been placed on record. The Insurance Company has not been able to establish anywhere if the cancellation deed is a fake document. There is no reason to agree with the contention of the Insurance Company that a vehicle once sold to a person cannot be taken back from him. Moreover, the parties involved in this complaint are the complainant and his son-in-law and none else. In the natural course, a son-in-law can drive the vehicle belonging to his father-in-law and this factor should not give a ground to the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim by any means.

In Revision Petition No. 2012/2007, decided by this Commission on 05.05.2011, Oriental Insurance Company vs. Kamal Tour & Travels , the vehicle had been sold to another person without any intimation to the Insurance Company. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case as the transfer deed between the parties stood cancelled. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bimlesh, Revision Petition No. 1347/2008 , decided on 03.09.2014, it was held that the ownership of the vehicle is transferred on execution of the sale letter and the requirement of informing the transfer to the registering authority is only a post-transfer statutory requirement. The view taken in this case also is not applicable in the present case, because the said sale letter had been reversed and that also, before the accident in question took place. The order of this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dalip Kumar (supra) is also not applicable to the present case because there is no question of making application to the Insurance Company for transfer of the same in the name of Ravi Singh Thakur, because the transfer deed was revoked.

The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim should have been filed within 12 calendar months from the date of the incident and such a view had been taken by this commission in Global Ispat Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company (supra) . This contention of the respondent is not valid because the accident took place on 15.07.2009, whereas the complaint has been filed on 18.02.2010 and hence, within less than a year.

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on an erroneous interpretation of the facts and legal provisions on the subject. There is absolutely no doubt that the ownership of the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy was also in his name on the date of the accident, and the transfer deed made by the complainant in favour of his son-in-law stood revoked much before the accident. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld being valid in the eyes of law. There shall be no order as to costs.