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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...