DEEP RAM BHAT vs Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS is an appeal against order dated 18 June, 1993 of District Forum, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 90 of 1990. We have heard Sri H.L. Khanna, authorised representative of the appellant and Sri Vineet Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.

THE present appeal is the third round of litigation between the parties before the State Commission. When the complaint was decided initially and brought before the State Commission in appeal, the matter was remanded by the State Commission for afresh trial. THE case was decided, after remand, and the appellant had to approach the State Commission again in an appeal. That appeal was also allowed and the matter was sent back a second time to the District Forum for determination in accordance with law. THE decision made by the District Forum after the second remand is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant was owner of bus bearing registration No. U.P.L. 168 which met with an accident on 5 May, 1991. The appellant made a claim before the Insurance Company, which is respondent in this appeal, and the claim was settled at Rs. 60,000/- However, the amount was not paid to the appellant by the Insurance Company on the ground that the appellant was not the owner of the bus as he had transferred it to Sri Harsh Mani Semwal under an agreement. The District Forum has, by the order under challenge in this appeal, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish by cogent evidence that he was the owner of the bus entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the Insurance Company.

There is no dispute between the parties that in respect of the accident which took place on 5 May, 1981 a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was payable as the amount of claim under the Insurance Policy in question. The only dispute is whether the appellant is entitled to get this amount being owner.

THE Insurance Company is governed in the matter of settlement of claims by the procedure provided in the Claims Procedural Manual of the New India Insurance Company Ltd. in respect of claims relating to accidents to Motor Vehicles. Clause 9 of the Manual provides that while processing the claims the Claim Form and other records should be carefully scrutinised to check up, inter alia, "(a)....... whether ownership of the vehicle as noted in the Registration Certificate is same as noted in the policy." There is no dispute now between the parties that the insurance policy stood in the name of the appellant. The appellant has placed on the record of the proceedings before the District Forum a letter from the Regional Transport Authority concerned to the effect that on the date of the accident the vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant as its owner.

SECTION 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which was in operation at the time of the accident defined an ''owner'' to mean a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. It also contemplates that in case of a motor vehicle which was subject to hire purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or a agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement will be the owner. The same definition has been given to the word ''owner'' in SECTION 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which has replaced the Act of the year 1939. The District Forum has mentioned in the order under challenge that under some agreement the bus had been transferred by the complainant to Sri Semwal on 9 January, 1984. Obviously, it was transferred, if at all, on a date long after the date of the accident which took place on 5 January, 1981 in respect whereof the present claim has been made. Since the appellant has been mentioned as the owner of the bus in the Insurance Policy in question and on the date of the accident the bus was registered in his name as the owner the (sic.) which the Insurance Company was required to make under its procedural Manual was fully satisfied, as far as the appellant is concerned. There should have been no difficulty for the Insurance Company in making the payment of the amount of the claim to the appellant and getting a discharge of its liability under the insurance policy. We may add that it has been stated before us by Mr. Srivastava appearing for the Insurance Company, that as far as he was aware Sri Semwal had not lodged any claim in respect of the vehicle in question regarding the accident dated 5 May, 1991.

THE appeal deserves to be and is allowed and the appellant Company is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs. 60,000/- determined by it as payable under the insurance policy in respect of the accident in question within six weeks from the date of a certified copy of the order being given to it failing which the amount shall carry interest at 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment. We also direct that the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of costs of these proceedings which shall also be payable and carry interest likewise. We are, however, not inclined to allow any interest on the sum of Rs. 60,000/- as prayed for by Mr. Khanna for the period between the settlement of the claim and our decision made today particularly in view of the fact that the Insurance Company had settled the claim in time but there was doubt about the person who was entitled to be paid the amount in question which has now been settled by us. Let copies of this order be made available to the representatives of the parties within three weeks. Appeal allowed.