AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, J
The complainant/respondent purchased a vehicle from its previous owner and got the vehicle transferred in his name on 1.12.2009. The previous owner of the vehicle had got the same insured with the petitioner company for the period from 7.4.2009 to 6.4.2010. He having sold the vehicle, the complainant claims to have applied to the insurer by way of a letter dated 6.12.2009 sent under a Certificate of Posting. The insurance was not transferred in his name. The vehicle met with an accident on 8.3.2010. The claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant. On merits, it was denied that the complainant had applied to the appellant company on 6.12.2009 for transfer of the insurance in his name. It was stated in the reply filed by the petitioner that no notice was ever received by the petitioner nor did the complainant deposit the fee required for change of name. It was also alleged that the documents filed by the complainant to prove the notice dated 6.12.2009 were forged documents. It was pointed out that in the notice and UPC, the date given was 5.12.2009 whereas the complainant had stated in the complaint that he had applied for transfer of the insurance on 6.12.2009. It was also pointed out that in the notice, the date of the document was mentioned as 5.12.2009 whereas in the body, it had been written that the vehicle was purchased 'today on 1.12.2009'.
The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
It is an admitted position that the insurance of the vehicle had not been transferred in the name of the complainant/respondent on the date it met with an accident. Therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that he had applied to the insurer within the time stipulated in Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of the insurance in his name and the insurance is deemed to have been transferred in his name. However, I find no merit in this contention. Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent applies to a third party claims and not to a claim made by the insured himself. In fact, the legal issue involved in this petition is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in [(1996) 1 SCC 221] decided on 21.11.1995. The following view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. (supra) is relevant in this regard:-
"It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If 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 the 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."
In view of the above-referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that since there was no contract of insurance between the parties, the petitioner cannot be said to have insured the vehicle, which the complainant had purchased from its previous owner. There being no privity of contract between the parties, the complainant is not entitled to any reimbursement from the petitioner.
Even otherwise, there is no reliable proof of the complainant having even applied to the petitioner for transfer of the insurance in his name. No explanation has been given by the complainant for not delivering the letter seeking transfer of the registration directly in the office of the petitioner in Nagaur. No explanation has been given by him for not sending the said notice by Registered Post. In the consumer complaint filed by him, the complainant alleged that immediately after purchase of the car, he sent a notice dated 6.12.2009 to the insurer. The date on the UPC filed by him, however, is different from the said date. Moreover, in the letter alleged to have sent to the insurer, the complainant wrote that he had purchased the vehicle "that today on 1.12.2009" whereas the date put on the document was 5.12.2009. The aforesaid discrepancy coupled with the fact that the alleged notice was neither delivered in the office of the insurer nor sent by Regd. Post leads to the inference that the documents relied upon by the complainant to prove the service of the notice upon the insurer are not genuine documents. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on the said documents.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.