Skip to main content

No vehicle insurance for victims if policy is in name of ex-owner

A customer buying a vehicle already in use must not only get it transferred in his/her name in the transport office record but also remember to apply it within 14 days before the insurance company to get the insurance policy transferred in his/her name.

A South Delhi resident, who purchased a used car but did not get the insurance policy transferred in his name, was refused insurance cover by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum since the policy was in the name of the previous owner on the date of the accident.

Fully insured
The complainant had purchased the fully ensured Maruti Esteem car from Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. The car was insured with the National Insurance Company from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006.

The car met with an accident on August 21, 2006. The complainant filed a claim for a sum of Rs.45,198.

The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that on the date of the accident, the complainant did not have any insurable interest since the car continued to be in the name of M/s Sahara India Financial Corporation, Lucknow.

The complainant moved the district consumer forum alleging deficiency in services.

The district forum, finding the insurance company to be deficient, directed it to pay the insurance amount along with interest of nine per cent annually. It further directed the insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000 to the complainant besides a cost of Rs.5,000.

The insurer moved an appeal to the State commission contending that the order of the district forum suffers from palpable illegality.

It submitted that the district forum relied on a 2007 judgment titled Narayan Singh vs. New India Assurance Company wherein it was held that the benefits under the insurance policy in force will automatically stand transferred to the new purchaser.

The National Insurance Company here added that “it appears that the subsequent judgement of the National Commission in a 2010 case was not brought to the notice of District Forum wherein it was held that in case the vehicle on the date of accident stood in the name of previous owner, the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes”.

Also, as per apex court ruling, deemed transfer of insurance policy under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act is restricted to third party risks, does not apply to other risks.

Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/no-vehicle-insurance-for-victims-if-policy-is-in-name-of-exowner/article6475037.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...