RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Sudhaben R Patel

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1289 of 2008 Reliance General Insurance Claim Department Vs. Sudhaben R. Patel by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that husband of complainant/respondent purchased TATA INDIGO car No. GJ 18 AB 1200 from Mr. Nalinbhai Sachdev. Mr. Nalinbhai Sachdev had taken insurance policy from OP/petitioner for a period of one year which was valid from 8.3.2007 to 7.3.3008 covering car to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and personal cover for owner/driver to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/ -. It was further submitted that on 20.5.2007, complainant''s husband who was driving car fell into the pool of water and died on the spot, report was lodged and claim was submitted to OP which was repudiated on the ground that there was no insurable interest in the policy. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy as policy was not transferred in the name of complainant''s husband and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,85,000/ -. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as insurance policy was not transferred in the name of deceased at the time of accident, claim was rightly repudiated; even then, District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

IT is not disputed that previous owner Mr. Nalinbhai Sachdev obtained insurance policy from OP for a period of one year from 8.3.2007 to 7.3.2008. It is also not disputed that Mr. Nalinbhai Sachdev sold TATA INDIGO car to complainant''s husband which was transferred in his name on 23.4.2007. It is also not disputed that accident took place on 20.5.2007 in which complainant''s husband while driving car died and car suffered damages. It is also not disputed that insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant''s husband at the time of accident.

LEARNED State Commission on the basis of judgment of this Commission in Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2007 4 CPJ 289 upheld order of District Forum on the assumption that benefit under the policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle. Aforesaid case was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case as the General Regulation 10 of India Motor Tariff had been amended from 30.6.2002 and had superseded earlier regulation. This Commission in R.P. No. 221 of 2006 Dharmendra Nath Thakur and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. observed as under: "On the point of automatic transfer of insurance as per General Regulation 10 of the India Motor Tariff, the same has to be rejected as this provision of the India Motor Tariff was in existence only upto 30th of June, 2002 and has been superseded by a new Motor Tariff Regulation. General Regulation No. 17 which is the new provision for transfers does not provide for any automatic transfer and mandates that the transferee will have to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing. On both these counts, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants have no merit.

Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants, in similar circumstances and on identical facts this Commission in the case of Madan Singh has held that if a vehicle is purchased and transferred while the insurance continues in the name of previous owner, the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify any loss/damage. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 1 SCC 221 has also ruled that the insured will not be entitled to compensation from the insurer for damage to the transferred vehicle in the absence of specific contract with insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle.

THIS Commission in R.P. 4444 of 2012 Sarfarjudeen Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 20.1.2015 observed as under: Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since the complainant has failed to get the insurance policy transferred in his name, therefore, he has no insurable interest and thus, is not entitled for any compensation.

IN the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that as insurance policy not stood transferred in the name of complainant''s husband at the time of accident, complainant''s husband had no insurable interest and complainant was not entitled to any compensation and petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim. Learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 26.03.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1289 of 2008 Reliance General Insurance Claim Department Vs. Sudhaben R. Patel and order of District Forum dated 17.05.2008 passed in CC No. 914 of 2007 - Reliance General Insurance Claim Department Vs. Sudhaben R. Patel is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.