- (1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 20th September, 2004 rendered by the learned Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Case No. 93/2003 directing the opponent Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/ - as indemnity insurance amount for the cost of motorcycle in question to the complainant No. 2 Dahyabhai with interest @ 9% p.a. from 7.8.2002 till payment and cost quantified at Rs. 2,000/ -.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Advocate for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the written submissions made on behalf of the original complainants, now respondents.
(3.) THE facts of the present case run into a narrow compass. The motorcycle in question insured with the opponent Insurance Company for the period 27.8.2001 to 26.8.2002 was sold by complainant No. 1 in favour of complainant No. 2 on 28.8.2001 but the endorsement about the sale was made in the R.T.O. record as also in the R.C. book on 12.9.2001. Incident of theft of the vehicle in question occurred on 27.6.2002. Opponent Insurance Company did not honour the claim on the ground that the first complainant lost insurable interest in the vehicle in question and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim insurance amount. The second complainant did not have any policy rights transferred in his favour and, therefore, in absence of any contract of insurance between him and the opponent Insurance Company he would not be entitled to claim benefit of the insurance policy in question. Learned Forum came to the conclusion that it would be a moot question, not to be decided in the present case whether Dinesh (complainant No. 1) should have retained insurable interest in the motorcycle till it was stolen and, therefore, the issue was decided against the opponent Insurance Company. Complainant No. 2 came to be treated as beneficiary with the consent of complainant No. 1 and, therefore, learned Forum passed the order in his favour. In our considered opinion the legal position attending to the question which was apparently not decided by the learned Forum is that unless a contract of insurance with regard to the vehicle in question was transferred to the transferee, he being the third party to the contract of insurance will not be entitled to the benefits thereof. At the same time the vehicle can be transferred by payment of consideration and delivery thereof. The first complainant lost insurable interest in the vehicle in question and, therefore, he was also not entitled to the benefit of the insurance. Reference in this connection has been made by the learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shantilal Mohanlal and Anr. V. Aher Bawanji Malde and Ors., 1985 1 GLR 465. It has been observed by the Hon ble High Court that after sale or transfer of the vehicle insurance policy in respect thereof would lapse and liability of insurer would cease unless there is express stipulation to the contrary. Referring to the provisions under Sections 94, 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Hon ble High Court has held that the said provisions did not confer any liability on the insurer to indemnify some one other than the insured. In the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 2 ACC 536, the law has been clearly amplified in respect of transfer of the vehicle subject to insurance policies. It has been held that the person to whom the vehicle has been transferred would not be entitled to the benefit from the insurer for damage to the vehicle in absence of a specific contract with the insurer covering risk or damage to the vehicle in question and the insurer s liability under the Motor Vehicles Act extends only to the risk or damage to the property of third party since the deeming provision contained in Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act would extend only to third party risks. Reference has also been made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of G. Govindan V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 1999 1 ACC 483, and in the case of Rikhi and Anr. v. Smt. Sukhrania and Ors., 2003 2 SLT 62, reiterating the same principles.;