NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 64 OF 2013
(From the order dated 10.10.2012 in Appeal No.876/2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
S/o Late Sh. Keshava Prasad Srivastava
C1/102, Mayfair Tower
Charmwood Village, Suraj Kund Road,
Faridabad – 121 009, Haryana … Petitioner/Complainant
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase II
Opp. SBI Bank,
New Delhi – 110 020. … Respondent/Opposite Party
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Langawat, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 8th February, 2013
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 876 of 2012 – Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. D.P. Srivastava by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Car No. HR 05Q 6846 from its registered owner Anil Kumar and obtained a comprehensive insurance cover of Rs.1,35,000/- in his name for the period from 29.8.2009 to 28.8.2010. During subsistence of policy, car got burnt on 18.2.2010. Complainant submitted claim which was repudiated by OP/Respondent on the ground that registration certificate of the car was in the name of Anil Kumar whereas insurance policy was in the name of complainant.
3. Complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency before the District Forum. OP/Respondent contested complaint and submitted that as the registration certificate of the car was in the name of previous owner and complainant failed to get it transferred in his name, complainant is not entitled to any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.75,000/- along with interest and litigation expenses. On appeal filed by the OP, learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that OP was also negligent in insuring vehicle in the name of petitioner, though, registration certificate stood in the name of previous owner Anil Kumar; so Insurance Company was liable to make good the loss and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint, hence, revision petition be admitted.
6. It is admitted fact that registration of the car stood in the name of Anil Kumar and petitioner after purchasing vehicle got it insured in his own name without transfer of registration certificate in his name. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides as under:
”50(1)(b) The transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration”.
7. As per this provision, the petitioner was bound to get the registration certificate transferred in his name and intimate to the insurance company but as the petitioner failed to get it transferred in his name within specified period, petitioner was not entitled to get any compensation only on the ground that policy existed in his name. At the time of taking policy, petitioner had no insurable interest in the vehicle and respondent/OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint filed by the petitioner. We find no infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
( B.C. GUPTA )