S.C. Jha, President:
1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 15.4.2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 147/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gopalganj (hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum) whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 40,000 on account of repair of the car and Rs. 2,000 for legal expenses.
2. The complainant-respondent B.B.Singh filed a complaint to this effect that he purchased Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-3C A/9897 from O.P. No. 2 after paying Rs. 72,000 for which cash receipt was given by him. The aforesaid car was insured in the name of the O.P. No. 2 for a period from 21.7.2001 to 20.7.2002 and accordingly cover note was issued by the office of the appellant.
3. The further case of the complainant was that on 18.5.2002, i.e., the period under cover of insurance, the vehicle of the complainant became damaged due to collusion in the tree standing at NH 28 in the district of Motihari. The only point, which is for consideration here is as to whether the compensation granted to the respondent by the learned District Forum could be upheld or not.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that as a matter of fact the date on which the accident took place, vehicle was under the period of valid insurance cover of the previous owner and the moment delivery of possession was given to the subsequent owner, i.e., respondent, the ownership was not changed. So, the respondent was not entitled to get any damages from the Insurance Company. Of course, as he further submitted that it defeated the interest of insured in such situation but so far claim of the respondent is concerned, admitted position is that the name of the respondent was not transferred as owner of the said vehicle. So, there cannot be any presumption of contract between the Insurance Company and the owner-respondent and as such, the respondent cannot claim any compensation from the Insurance Company.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the steps were taken by the respondent for transfer of the ownership since the registration belonging to Delhi Zone, so it took time.
6. He has relied upon the earlier decision of this Commission dated 6.1.2009 in First Appeal No. 105/2002 wherein such relief has been granted to the claimant-owner of such vehicle.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision reported in United India Insurance Co. v. Harinder Kaur, III (2007) CPJ 411 (NC), wherein it has been held that the transferee is not entitled to get benefit of insurance policy, as such, owner cannot claim any claim from the Insurance Company even if the car met an accident.
8. He has also relied upon and referred to a decision of Supreme Court reported in Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=I (1996) CLT 22 (SC)=II (1996) ACC 536 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 586, wherein it has been held that liability of the Insurance Company is limited in view of provision under Section 157 of the Insurance Act.
9. Reading together the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that in such situation with which we are confronted here the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle categorized as transferee cannot claim any compensation or damage from the Insurance Company only on the ground that the vehicle concerned is not registered in his name as an owner and the previous insurance policy issued in the name of vender of the transferee cannot be considered for grant of compensation to the subsequent transferee.
10. We have examined such aspect of the submission from various angles as also the materials on the record.
11. We do feel that such transferee cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Company in view of the fact that there cannot be presumption of any valid agreement between the Insurance Company and transferee regarding transfer of vehicle. The Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle are bound by terms and conditions of the contract and a contract can only be presumed between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company on the date when such accident took place. The respondent-complainant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident.
12. In the circumstance, we do feel that the learned District Forum has not considered this aspect of fact and the material on record in right perspective and has awarded the compensation, which is not sustainable in law as also on facts.
13. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Appeal allowed.