Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. District Commission, Nadia dated 25.04.2016 passed in C/47/2015, this Appeal is moved by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Without mentioning the fact of the case and for brevity’s sake, the core issue to be decided in this Appeal is whether the Respondent had any insurable interest over the Motor Cycle WB52P1225 on the date of stolen of the same i.e. on 29.08.2014.
Heard both sides over the matter at length and perused the citations of respective parties in support of their submission.
Before I dwell on the issue, let me first put in place law of the relevant fact hereunder.
- Ld. District Commission in his judgment dated 25.04.2016 in page 3 Paragraph 1 last 4 (four) lines—
“So as per rule of the policy the complainant can enjoy all privileges after transfer of his name in the same policy as well as per status between the complainant and the OP, the complainant is to be treated as consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
But the said ‘after transfer’ not taken place by 29.08.2014.
- Admittedly, the name of the Respondent is incorporated in M.V. Department as per report of M.V. Department dated 29.02.2016
- Repudiation (letter dated 23.09.2014 addressed to earlier owner of the vehicle (Subhra Brata Bhattacharya) speaks—“there should exist Insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss.”
- Citation referred by Respondent No. 1 i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5998 of 2019 does not squarely fit with the position and situation of this instant Appeal.
- Admittedly, Complainant/Respondent filed a letter dated 25.07.2014 before the Appellant but the same is not processed.
- The crux of the issue has been aptly dealt by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Buddhi Prakash Jain—Vs—Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.[IV (2015) CPJ 337(NC)] which runs as follows:-
“Registration certificate transferred—Insurance policy not transferred—Accident of vehicle—claim repudiation—No privity of contract.”
“Complainant intimated opposite party through a simple letter for transfer of policy without completing formalities—As such it cannot be presumed that complainant has fulfilled requirement of Section 157(2) of Motor Vehicles Act—Complainant has no insurable interest in vehicle at time of accident.”
- The above observation is reiterated by Hon’ble NCDRC of in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.—Vs—Ashok laxman Mane & Others [2021 (1) TAC 67 NCDRC]. Which speaks as follows:-
So far as policy in question had not been transferred in favour of complainant, petitioner-company held not liable to reimburse the Complainant.
In view of the said backdrop, the repudiation of the claim of the Appellant as on 23.09.2014 is sustainable.
In the light of the above finding, I allow this Appeal, the impugned order is set aside.
