JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated

3.5.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum, Kolhapur with cost of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the cost already imposed by the District Forum. -2- 2. Briefly stated, undisputed facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that vehicle No.MH-09-AQ-330 was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company for the period from

6.1.2007 to 5.1.2008 by its original owner Shri Surendra Appaso Chougule. During the subsistence of the insurance policy Shri Surendra Appaso Chougule sold aforesaid vehicle to the respondent- Smt. Kasturi J. Patil (complainant). The transfer of the ownership was registered with the regional transport office on 7.8.2007. Smt. Kasturi J. Patil however did not inform the insurance company that the ownership was got transferred in her name. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 24.12.2007. The intimation of accident was given to the police as well as the petitioner- insurance company. The insurance company appointed a surveyor who evaluated the loss caused to the vehicle to the extent of Rs.3,38,000/-. The insurance company however repudiated the claim of the respondent- Smt. Kasturi J. Patil on the ground that the respondent has failed to intimate the transfer of ownership in her name to the insurance company within the stipulated period of 14 days and got the insurance policy transferred in her name. Feeling -1- aggrieved by the repudiation of claim and treating it as deficiency in service, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. 3. The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner- insurance company by filing reply. The District Fora on consideration of record concluded that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and directed the petitioner- opposite party to pay to the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- -3- together with 9% interest p.a. w.e.f. 1st September, 2008. The Consumer Fora also awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony as also cost of Rs.1000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Consumer Fora the petitioner-opposite party preferred first appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai and the State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. It is against the aforesaid dismissal of appeal the petitioner has preferred the revision. 5. Shri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party has contended that the orders of the Fora below are not sustainable in law because the District Forum as well as the State Commission have passed orders against the petitioner in utter disregard of GR-17 issued under the Indian Motor Tariff. GR-17 of India Motor Tariff reads as under: - R.17. Transfers On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance. In case of Package Policies, transfer of the wn Damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee, -4- shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer. A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies. Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued. 6. On perusal of the above rule, it is clear that in the event of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle during the currency of the insurance policy, the insurance policy is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee w.e.f. the date of transfer. However, the rule casts an obligation on the transferee of the vehicle to apply for transfer of insurance in his/her name within 14 days of transfer so that the insurer may make necessary changes in its record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. The rule further provides that in case of damage policies, transfer of wn damagesection of policy in favour of the transferee shall be made by the insurer only on a specific request from the transferee alongwith the consent of the transferor. Admittedly, in the instant case the -5- insurance policy was a private car package policy. Therefore, in view of the rule the own damage section of the policy, the policy could only be transferred in the name of the respondent/complainant on a specific request from the respondent- transferee alongwith the consent of the previous owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, no such request for transfer was made by the respondent. Therefore, in our considered view the respondent was not entitled to claim damages for the accidental loss caused to the vehicle and the insurance company was right in repudiating the claim. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the State Commission has misinterpreted GR-17 on the basis of incomplete reading of the rule ignoring the later portion of the GR-17 which casts an obligation on the transferee of the package insurance policy to apply for transfer of insurance in his/her favour with consent from the transferer. In para-4 of the impugned order the State Commission has reproduced only part of GR-17 and observed that rest of the portion of GR-17 is not relied upon by the appellant. The aforesaid approach adopted by the State Commission is perverse. The issue before the State Commission was a legal issue i.e. the interpretation of GR-17 and while interpreting GR-17 the State Commission was expected to read the rule as a whole and not apply the rule in piecemeal. Thus, in our view, the order of the State Commission suffers from grave infirmity. As such, it cannot be sustained. 8. We may note that issue under consideration is no more res-integra. Similar issue came up before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2131/1994 -6- titled Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. decided on 21.11.1995 wherein Honle Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in the context of liability of insurance company upon transfer of vehicle during the subsistence of insurance policy held that in the event of transfer of vehicle during subsistence of insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the loss caused to the third party but if the insurance is not transferred in the name of the transferee, the insurance company is not liable to pay the loss caused to the transferee of the vehicle. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Sashikala Sahu & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in Revision Petition No.679/2007 decided on 8th May, 2007. 9. In view of the above, since admittedly the respondent did not get the insurance cover transferred in her favour, the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of damage caused to the vehicle. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-insurance company, we accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the District Forum as well as State Commission and dismiss the complaint. 10. No order as to cost. ......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER