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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...