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

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...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...