1. IN this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 17.1.2013 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short , ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No.1164/2011, vide which appeal filed by Respondents /Opposite Parties was allowed. Consequently, complaint filed by Petitioner/Complainant was dismissed.
2. BRIEF facts are, that petitioner purchased a Tata Indica Car from one Joginder Singh who got the said car fully insured from the respondents for the period from 14.09.2009 to 13.09.2010. After purchasing the said car from Joginder Singh, petitioner applied for change of Ownership/Registration of the car. It is also stated, that after purchase of car, petitioner stepped into the shoes of previous owner. Intimation regarding purchase of car was given by the petitioner to the respondents and requested them for transfer of insurance cover/policy in his name. On 25.03.2010, registration of car was transferred in his name by D.T.O. Sangrur. However, on the same day at about 10.00 p.m., when petitioner was coming from village Cheemato Sunam, suddenly a stray cow came in front of the car. In order to save the cow, petitioner turned the car side way but lost his control over the car and car turned out in the adjoining fields. Petitioner also suffered some injuries in the accident but the car was completely damaged (i.e. total loss of the car). DDR Number 10 dated 26.03.2010 was lodged by the petitioner with Police Post Cheema, District Sangrur. Petitioner himself was driving the car and having a valid driving licence. Intimation regarding accident was given to the office of respondents at Sangrur. A surveyor was deputed by the respondents to inspect the spot of accident. Since, petitioner''s claim was not settled for 8 months, therefore, complaint was filed praying for directions to the respondents to pay Rs.1 lac as insured value of the car and Rs.50,000/ - on account of mental tension and Rs.5,500/ - on account of litigation expenses.
3. IN their reply, respondents averred that at request of the previous owner - Joginder Singh, car was insured. It is further stated that petitioner should have informed the respondents within 14 days of purchase of the car, under section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, which petitioner had not done. It is further averred, that claim of petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the policy, as Insurance Cover was available to Joginder Singh only. There was no agreement between the insurer and the transferee. Furthermore, no claim is payable to petitioner as per G.R. 17 of the India Motor Tariff, revised with effect from 01 -07 -2002. It is further stated that after receiving intimation on 26 -03 -2010 from petitioner, Er. Rajesh Aggarwal was appointed as surveyor, who submitted his report on 13 -04 -2010. Further, second surveyor Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg, was appointed to assess the final loss to the vehicle, who recommended Rs.50,000/ - on net salvage basis. The petitioner agreed to receive Rs.50,000/ - towards full and final settlement of his claim vide Consent Letter dated 20 -04 -2010.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (for short, ''District Forum''), vide order dated 2.6.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - as IDV of the car, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till realization and to pay Rs.3,000/ - as litigation expenses. The respondents were directed to collect the salvage of the accidental car without delay.
4. AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same.
5. HENCE , this revision.
6. WE have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
7. IT is submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that registration of the car was transferred in petitioner''s name on 25.3.2010. Thus, as soon as the registration is so transferred in the name of Petitioner on 25.3.2010, the insurance policy is also deemed to be transferred in his favour immediately on 25.3.2010, itself by virtue of GR -17. Once the insurance policy is deemed to be transferred in favour of the petitioner by virtue of law, then respondents are bound to honour the claim. Therefore, respondents stand that policy is not transferred in Petitioner''s name or petitioner did not apply for transfer of policy within 14 days, would be immaterial and inconsequential. Secondly, a minute perusal of conditions prescribed in said GR -17 would show that the stipulation of transferee (Petitioner herein) applying within 14 days is from the "date of transfer" and not from the "date of purchase", as has being wrongly interpreted by State Commission.
8. THE State Commission in its impugned order observed;
"9. There is no dispute between the parties that the car was insured with the appellant for the period from 14.9.2009 to 13.09.2010 which was insured in the name of Sh. Joginder Singh previous owner of the car. There is also no dispute that the car met with accident on 25.3.2010 and the registration of the car was also transferred in the name of the appellant on 25.3.2010 i.e. same day by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur.
10. As per affidavit of the previous owner, the car was purchased by the respondent on 19.1.2010 but the policy was not got transferred by the respondent in his name within 14 days as per GR -17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. The respondent has also not mentioned any date in his complaint or affidavit regarding the intimation to the appellant for the transfer of policy in his name. We have also perused the application dated 30.06.2010 vide which the respondent had requested the appellant for the change of insurance policy in his name i.e. after the accident and on his request the insurance policy was transferred in his name on 20.07.2010. We have also perused the complaint, affidavit of the respondent which are signed by the respondent in English, as such the allegations of the respondent that his signatures were obtained on blank papers are not correct. He is not illiterate person.
11. So from the above documents, it is proved beyond any doubt that the car was sold by Joginder Singh, previous owner to respondent on 19.1.2010 and handed over the possession of the same to the respondent, but the respondent had not applied with the appellants for the transfer of the policy within 14 days in his name from Joginder Singh, previous owner which was required under Regulation No. GR -17.
12. General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act is reproduced as under: -
"GR.17. Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance."
13. In terms of the said Regulation, the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle to the insurer for making necessary changes and issue of fresh certificate of insurance.
14. The Hon''ble National Commission in case "Om Parkash Sharma Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.", 2009 CTJ 313 (CP) (NCDRC) upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company as respondent No.1 did not get the policy transferred in his name. The Hon''ble National Commission in para 4 observed as follows: -
"As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus stand to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
15. It is mandatory requirement cast upon the purchaser to inform the insurance company for the transfer of the insurance policy in his name within the period of 14 days from the date of purchase but respondent did not comply with the above provision as such he was not having any insurable interest in insurance policy which was in the name of Joginder Singh, previous owner of the car.
16. The order passed by the learned District Forum is against the settled proposition of law, as such, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted without any order as to costs and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed."
9. AS per petitioner''s case, accident took place on 25.3.2010 at about 10 p.m. Surprisingly, on 25.3.2010 itself, registration of car was transferred in petitioner''s name. But petitioner has not placed on record, copy of FIR so as to show the manner in which the accident took place.
10. FURTHER , petitioner had purchased the car from Joginder Singh through affidavit. However, no copy of sale letter in favour of petitioner has been placed on record. Be that as it may, petitioner has nowhere mentioned in its entire complaint, as to on which date he applied for change of transfer of insurance policy in his name.
11. AS per affidavit of Shri J.K. Walia, Divisional Manager of respondents, filed before the District Forum, petitioner requested the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy in his name, vide letter dated 30.6.2010 and insurance company transferred the policy in his favour w.e.f. 20.7.2010 to 13.9.2010.
12. THE date of accident is 25.3.2010. Admittedly, on that date petitioner was not the insured. The insurance policy was transferred in his name only on 20.7.2010. Thus, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent -insurance company on the date of accident. Moreover, petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 within the specified time.
13. THE State Commission was fully justified in allowing the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the complaint, We do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order. Accordingly, present revision petition stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
14. PETITIONER is directed to deposit above cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
15. LIST on 22.5.2015 for compliance.
