Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g), section 21(b); cases referred: 1. complete insulations (p) ltd. v. new india assurance company ltd., i (1996) cpj 1 (sc), 1996 (1) clt 22 (sc), 1996 (2) acc 536 (sc).(relied) 2. united india insurance company v. harinder kaur, 2007 (3) cpj 411 (nc).(relied) 3. narayan singh v. new india assurance company ltd., 2007 (4) cpj 289 (nc).(relied) 4. oriental insurance co. ltd. v. om prakash gupta and anr., 2009 (1) cpj 183 (nc).(relied) 5. madan singh v. united india insurance co. ltd. and anr., 2009 (1) cpj 158 (nc). (relied) 6. national insurance co. ltd. v. lakshmi and ors., 1997 (1) acc 276.(not applicable) 7. govindaraju v. laxminarasaiah and ors., 1998 (1) tac 858 (kar.) .(not applicable) 8. nagindas and anr. v. nasir ali and ors., 1998 (1) tac 861 (mp).(not applicable) 9. new india insurance co. ltd. v. smt. sita sharma and ors., 1999 (1) acc 185 (db).(not applicable) 10. new india assurance co. ltd. v. dalip kumar, 2011 (4) cpj 579 (nc). (relied) comparative citation: 2014 (1) cpj 493 (nc), k.s. chaudhari, presiding member: 1. this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the state commission in first appeal no. 1538/2007, united india insurance company ltd. vs. jit singh and anr., by which while allowing the appeal, order of the district forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent no. 2 jit singh alongwith prem singh were owner of truck pb-32a-4797 and got it insured from opposite party-respondent no. 1 for a period of one year commencing from 09.11.2005 to 08.11.2006. jit singh and prem singh sold their truck to complainant-petitioner, sandeep gupta on 13.11.2005. on 13.04.2006, vehicle was stolen and report was lodged on the very day and intimation was also given to the opposite party and submitted claim papers, but claim was repudiated by opposite party. alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the district forum. opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that as vehicle was sold by registered owner, jit singh to complainant, sandeep gupta on 13.11.2005, but insurance policy was not got transferred in his name and no intimation was given to the opposite party about the transfer of vehicle, therefore, complainant, sandeep gupta had no insurable interest and complainant jit singh was not owner of the truck, so claim was repudiated rightly, hence complaint may be dismissed. 3. learned district forum, after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed the opposite party to pay insurance claim alongwith interest and further awarded rs. 3,000/- as costs. appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by the state commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed. 4. none appeared for respondent no. 2 even after service. 5. heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per section 157 of the motor vehicle act, policy automatically stands transferred in the name of subsequent registered owner of the vehicle and learned district forum rightly allowed the complaint, but learned state commission committed error in allowing the appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 7. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned state commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference, hence revision petition be dismissed. 8. it is not disputed that previous registered owner of the truck were jit singh and prem singh, who obtained insurance of the truck from opposite party and during continuity of insurance policy, jit singh and prem singh sold truck to complainant, sandeep gupta on 13.11.2005 and vehicle was stolen on 13.04.2006. 9. the core question to be decided in this revision petition is whether insurance company is liable to make payment to the subsequent registered owner without transfer of insurance policy in his name. learned state commission, after discussing all the authorities reported in i (1996) cpj 1 (s.c.) complete insulations (p) ltd. vs. new india assurance company ltd., iii (2007) cpj 411 (nc) united india insurance company vs. harinder kaur, 2008 (1) clt 46 (nc) narayan singh vs. new india assurance company ltd., i (2009) cpj 183 (nc) oriental insurance co. ltd. vs. om prakash gupta and anr., i (2009) cpj 158 (nc) madan singh vs. united india insurance co. ltd. and anr. and gr.17. effectivefrom 01.07.2002. came to the conclusion that subsequent transferee of vehicle is not entitled to get compensation for loss to the vehicle in the absence of transfer of insurance policy in his name and further observed that as vehicle has already been sold by jit singh and prem singh to sandeep gupta, they were also not entitled to any insurance claim. 10. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per provision of section 157 (i), insurance policy automatically stands transferred in the name of subsequent registered owner and section 157 (2), motor vehicle actis only procedural provision, so complaint can not be deprived of benefits of policymerely because insurance policy has not been transferred in his name. in support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on i (1997) acc 276 (karnataka high court) national insurance co. ltd. vs. lakshmi and ors., 1998 (1) t.a.c. 858 (karnatak) govindaraju vs. laxminarasaiah and ors., 1998 (1) t.a.c. 861 (m.p.) nagindas and anr. vs. nasir ali and ors. and 1999 (2), t.a.c. 479 (aii) new india insurance co. ltd. vs. smt. sita sharma and ors., in which it was held that absence of intimation of transfer by the transferee to the insurer shall not enable the insurer to deny the liability. 11. respectfully, we do not agree with the view taken by honble karnataka high court, madhya pradesh high court and allahabad high court in the light of judgment of honble apex court in complete insulation (p) ltd. case (supra) in which it was clearly held in para 12 as under:- œif the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside chapter xi of the new act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. in the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. the view taken by the national commission is therefore, correct.? 12. this commission in revision petition no. 1528/2007, new india assurance co. ltd. vs. dalip kumar decided on 18.10.2011, has rightly observed as under:- œsimilarly, in rikhiram and anr. vs. sukhrania and ors. - (2003) 3 scc 97, the supreme court while interpreting the provisions of section 157 held that although with the transfer of vehicle the insurance company remains liable towards third party claims but the transferee cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the act. it was further held that the insurance company would remain liable to third parties, but it would be open to the insurance company to recover the said amount either from the insured or from the transferee of the vehicle. it was observed: œ6. on an analysis of sections 94 and 95, we further find that there are two third parties when a vehicle is transferred by the owner to a purchase. the purchase is one of the third parties to the contract and other third party is for whose benefit the vehicle was insured. so far, the transferee who is the third party in the contract, cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the act. however, so far as third party injured or victim is concerned, he can enforce liability undertaken by the insurer. 7. ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦. 8. for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal, is allowed. we set aside the order and judgment under challenge. it is hereby directed that the insurer shall pay compensation to the victims within eight weeks along with the interest @ 11% p.a. from the date of incident and it will be open to the insurer to recover the said amount either from the insured or from the transferee of the vehicle. however, there shall be no order as to the costs.? in view of the provisions of the motor vehicles act and the tariff regulations and the decisions of the supreme court, if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about transfer of the registration certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle. petitioner insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.? 13. in the light of aforesaid judgments of honble apex court and national commission, we are of the view that if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about the transfer of registration certificate in his name, and the policy is not transferred in the name of transferee, then the insurance company can not be held liable to pay the claim in case of own damage of the vehicle. 14. we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 15. consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.