UNITED INDIA INSURNCE CO. LTD. vs JAGMOHAN TREHAN

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. FA/08/78 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagmohan Trehan by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased a Car bearing No. DL-7C-C-3643 from Sh. Praveen Dabas on 5.1.2004. He got the RC of the vehicle transferred in his name on 5.1.2004 itself. The car was already insured with OP/Petitioner from 16.9.2003 to 15.9.2004. He wrote a letter to OP/Petitioner on 9.1.2004 for transfer of the insurance cover in his name through UPC. Unfortunately, the car was stolen on 17.1.2004 at 11.00 AM from sector 8, Rohini, New Delhi and FIR was lodged with local police. Local police issued untraced report. Subsequently he applied to OP for reimbursement of the amount of the car i.e. Rs. 4.50,000/-. OP

repudiated claim on the ground that complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle, as policy was not transferred in his name. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP issued policy in the name of Mr. Parveen Dabas and complainant failed to intimate OP about transfer of vehicle in terms of Section 157 of M.V. Act and did not get policy transferred in his name; so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- IDV of the vehicle along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order along with cost of Rs. 25,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was no insurable interest with the complainant, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

It is not disputed that Vehicle No.DL-7C-C-3643 was previously registered in the name of Mr. Parveen Dabas, who got insurance policy from OP for a period of one year from 16.9.2003 to 15.9.2004. It is also not disputed that complainant purchased vehicle from Mr. Parveen Dabas and registration certificate was transferred in the name of the complainant on 5.1.2004. It is also not disputed that vehicle was stolen on 17.1.2004 and FIR was lodged on the same day.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no request was made by complainant for transferring policy in the name of complainant, complainant was having no insurable interest; so, claim was rightly repudiated. Perusal of record reveals that complainant by letter dated 9.1.2004 intimated to OP through UPC for transfer of insurance policy in his name. Complainant has placed copy of letter dated 9.1.2004 and copy of postal receipt depicting despatch of aforesaid letter under UPC to OP on 9.1.2004. In the aforesaid letter, complainant clearly mentioned that he has purchased vehicle which has been transferred in his name and insurance policy may be transferred in his name. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that no reliance can be placed on aforesaid letter. This argument is devoid of force because despatch of above said letter under UPC has been mentioned in the complaint and same has been filed here. Petitioner in revision petition has nowhere stated that this letter was not received by petitioner. In ground 7 of the revision petition only this fact has been mentioned that principle of presumption of receipt is applicable only against registered post and there is no principle of presumption of receipt of a letter sent by UPC. This ground is devoid of force because when complainant has placed on record copy of letter along with UPC receipt and addressed to the OP at correct address, it can be presumed that this letter must have reached to the OP.

Learned Counsel for OP submitted that complainant has not made necessary payment for transfer; so, this letter could not have been considered. This argument is also devoid of force because had OP asked complainant to make payment of any amount for transfer of insurance policy and had complainant not made payment instead of demand, this argument could have been considered, but as OP did not ask for payment of any charges, OP was under an obligation to transfer insurance policy in the name of the complainant unless rejected.

For the sake of arguments even if it is presumed that request for transfer of insurance policy in complainant''s name was not made by letter dated 9.1.2004; even then, OP is liable to make payment because Section 157 of M.V. Act provides 14 days period for making request for transfer of insurance policy. Admittedly, vehicle was transferred in complainant''s name on 5.1.2004 and vehicle was stolen on 17.1.2004 meaning thereby, within 12 days. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that complainant violated provisions of Section 157 of M.V. Act. This Commission in R.P. No. 556 of 2002 Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd . observed that as 14 days'' time for transfer of application was not over in the case, complainant was entitled to compensation for damage to the vehicle.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has misconstrued judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in (1996) 1 SCC 221 - Complete Insulations (P) Ltd . Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd . We agree with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned State Commission has misconstrued law laid down by aforesaid case and as per aforesaid case, provisions of deemed transfer are not applicable for damage to the Vehicle under Section 157 of M.V. Act, but in the case in hand, as complainant had already requested for transfer of insurance policy in his name and 14 days'' time had not elapsed, OP has committed error in repudiating claim and learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing complaint.

Learned State Commission has also imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant while dismissing appeal which was not justified and to this extent, revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order directing to pay Rs. 25,000/- vide impugned order dated 13.5.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. FA/08/78 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagmohan Trehan is set aside and rest of the order is upheld. Parties to bear their cost.