Mohd. Adil vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

The petitioner/complainant owned an Indica car, he having purchased the same on 31.10.2006. The said vehicle was transferred in his name on the same day. He allegedly sent a letter dated 01.11.2006 to the insurer requesting transfer of the insurance policy which his Predecessor-in-Charge had obtained from the respondent, in his name. The said letter is alleged to have been sent to the insurer under Certificate of Posting dated 09.11.2006. The case of the respondent however, is that the aforesaid letter dated 01.11.2006 was never received by them from the petitioner and that the Certificate of Posting filed by the complainant/petitioner was a forged and fabricated document. The vehicle in question met with an accident in the night intervening 2nd /3rd December 2006, the petitioner/complainant submitted a claim for re-imbursement in terms of the insurance policy of the vehicle. The claim having not been paid, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The District Forum ruled in favour of the petitioner/complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31.08.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

As noted earlier, the insurer has denied having received the letter dated 01.11.2006 from the complainant/petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complainant/petitioner had in fact sent a letter dated 07.12.2006 informing them of the accident and stating therein that the intimation of the accident had been given by him in the office of the insurer on 04.12.2006 but neither any attention was paid to the intimation given by him nor the insurance was transferred in his name. It was also stated in the aforesaid letter that the complainant/petitioner had sent a letter to the insurer on 01.11.2006 for transfer of the insurance policy in his name but since no note of the said letter was taken, he had sent a registered letter to the Head Office as well as the Branch Office of the insurer. A copy of the said letter dated 01.11.2006 was annexed to the letter dated 07.12.2006. Thus, the stand taken in the letter dated 07.12.2006 was contrary to the stand taken in the Consumer Complaint. As per the case set out in the Consumer Complaint, letter dated 01.11.2006 was sent under Certificate of Posting dated 09.11.2006 whereas as per the stand taken in the letter dated 07.12.2006, the request for transfer of the insurance in favour of the complainant was sent by registered post to the Head Office and the Branch Office of the insurer. No postal receipt evidencing dispatch of the aforesaid letter either to the Head Office or to the Branch Office of the insurer by registered post has been filed by the complainant which shows that a false stand with respect to dispatch of the letter dated 01.11.2006 was take in the letter dated 07.12.2006.

The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the list of dates and events filed by the petitioner/complainant wherein he has specifically stated that when no one from the insurance company came for survey, he gave letter dated 07.12.2006 in writing in the matter. Thus, the letter dated 07.12.2006 is an admitted document. As noted earlier, the stand taken in the letter dated 07.12.2006 was that the request for transfer of the insurance in the name of the complainant/petitioner was sent to the Head Office as well as to the Branch Office of the insurer by registered post. However, no postal receipt has been filed to prove the said allegation and more importantly, the stand now taken by the petitioner is that the letter dated 01.11.2006 was sent under the Certificate of Posting dated 09.11.2006. The case set out by the petitioner/complainant cannot be believed the same being contrary to the stand taken by him in the admitted letter dated 07.12.2006.

I am therefore, satisfied that the petitioner/complainant did not seek transfer of the insurance in his name prior to 07.12.2006. The vehicle having met with an accident in the night intervening 2nd /3rd December 2006, it can hardly be disputed that there was no privity of contract between the parties and there was no contract of insurance in favour of the complainant/petitioner on the date the vehicle met with an accident. Since this is a claim by the insured himself and not a third party to the complaint, the following view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. V. New India Assurance Company AIR 1996 SC 586 applies:

"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 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 petitioner/complainant therefore, is not entitled to any re-imbursement from the insurer. The view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.