http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  550 of 2008

PETITIONER: M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Ram Prakash Raturi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  550 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24307 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.   

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi (in short ’National Commission’) in Revision Petition  No.330 of 2005.  By the impugned order, the revision petition  was dismissed.

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:   

       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 complainant’s vehicle.  He was also entitled to interest

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

@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.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  National Commission failed to take notice of several aspects.   Firstly, in the notice issued by Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate on  behalf of Shri Abdul Gaffar, an affidavit was filed where the  respondent no.1 had clearly stated that he had no objection if  the payment of amount for the accident claim of the vehicle is  given to Smt. Roopa Sharma. This notice was issued on  17.11.2000.  On 12.7.2001 another notice was issued on  behalf of Ram Prakash Raturi, the respondent herein wherein  it was stated that the said Ram Prakash Raturi was the  registered owner of the vehicle which had been purchased by  him from Smt. Roopa Sharma and the necessary changes to  the effect in the records of RTO, Dehradun were made and  endorsement to this effect was also made in the registration  certificate of the aforesaid vehicle on 17.2.1995.  It was stated  that after verification of several documents cover note was  issued which covered the period from 16.9.1999 to 15.9.2000.   If, as indicated in the notice, the transfer was affected on  17.2.1995, the question of issuing the cover note/policy in the  name of Smt. Roopa Sharma in the year 1999 did not arise.  It  was also pointed out that in the Motor claim form filed by  respondent no.1, he claimed to be the insured.  All these  clearly indicated that the respondent had not established that  he had any insurable claim.                           

5.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is  vehicle which is the subject matter of insurance and not any  person and, therefore, the District Forum, State Commission  and the National Commission were justified in their views.    

6.      It is to be noted that there is no dispute 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 stands  taken.  The following are the observations of the National  Commission which clearly show that relevant aspects were not  considered by the Commission:

"We heard the Ld. Counsel for the  petitioner at some length and also perused the  material on record.  The basic facts are not  disputed, i.e. about the ownership of the car,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the name of the insured, accident and the  vehicle being covered by the insurance policy.   There is no disputing the fact that the vehicle  had been transferred in the name of  complainant.  We agree with the findings of  both the lower fora that what was covered  under insurance was the vehicle and not the  person.  It is the vehicle which had met with  the accident and it stood  transferred/registered in the name of the  complainant.  There is no denying the fact that  when the vehicle was getting insured, the RC  was seen by the Insurance  company/Petitioner. It was at that stage, that  any discrepancy now being taken advantage of  by the petitioner could have been pointed out.  It was not done.  In such a situation, the  complainant cannot be remediless."

                       (Underlined for emphasis)

7.      It was noted as if there 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.

8.      In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the  National Commission and remit the matter to it for a fresh  consideration in accordance with law.               9.      The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  No costs.