Case: M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi

Respondent lodged a claim with the appellant claiming compensation for damages caused to the vehicle No.UP 07/A- 0234. It was stated that the same was an Ambassador Taxi. The claim was repudiated by the appellant primarily on the ground that the policy of insurance was issued in the name of Smt. Roopa Sharma C/o Abdul Gaffar, 31/1. Muslim Colony, Dehradun, therefore, such claim was not entertained. Dispute was raised before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (for short District Forum). Claim was made for Rs. 42,000/-. In the claim petition it was stated that the vehicle in question was purchased from Smt. Roopa Sharma and due registration was made by RTO, Dehradun and the appellant was duly informed about the transfer. The premium was received and insurance coverage was granted for the period from 16.9.1999 to 15.9.2000. It was stated that relevant documents were produced before the appellant and notwithstanding the knowledge about the transfer of the ownership, the claim was rejected. The appellant filed objections to the claim petition and took the stand that the policy was in respect of own damage. The vehicle which was the subject matter of insurance stood in the name of Smt. Roopa Sharma. Therefore, in the absence of transfer of ownership or any information in that regard, the insurance company was not required to liquidate the claim.District Forum was of the view that the insurance company was liable to pay Rs. 29,535/- towards the damages of complainants vehicle. He was also entitled to interest @10% after 27.7.2000 i.e. the date of rejection of the claim and from 1.8.2000 till the payment to the complainant. Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses were also awarded as payable. An appeal was preferred before the State Commission Consumer Protection, Uttaranchal (in short State Commission). The appeal was partly allowed and the award of compensation was deleted. But it was held that since the vehicle was the subject matter of insurance, it was immaterial as to whether there was any transfer of ownership. a revision petition was filed before the National Commission, which as noted above, dismissed the revision petition.

Court's reasoning:
There is nodispute that it is the vehicle which is the subject matter of insurance as was held by this Court in G. Govindass v. New Assurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 1398 ). In that case the decision was rendered in the background of a third party claim. Obviously, that question would not have much relevance on a claim relating to own damages. Further the factual scenario is not very clear. There appears to be two persons who made claim. One was Abdul Gaffar and the other was the respondent. Interestingly, in the notice issued on behalf of Abdul Gaffar, the respondent had given an affidavit stating that he had no objection if the amount was to be paid to Smt. Roopa Sharma. National Commission did not consider these aspects and on the contrary came to conclusions which are contrary to the standsthere was no dispute that when the vehicle was insured the registration certificate had been seen by the insurance company. It was noted that there was no dispute that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the complainant. In fact, there was categorical dispute about this fact. It is, therefore, clear that the National Commission has disposed of the revision petition without considering the relevant factors.