Order Name: Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh, Hasim
Case No.: First Appeal No. 220/2018
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, helmed by Ms Kumkum Rani and Mr B.S. Manral, recently sided with the National Insurance Company Limited in an appeal. The issue at the center of the dispute was a rejected accident claim which the insurance company had refused on the grounds that the Complainant’s name wasn’t listed on the insurance policy.
To give you a little background, the complainant had purchased a truck on May 3, 2010, that was insured by the National Insurance Company from March 15, 2012, to March 14, 2013. Unfortunately, the truck was involved in an accident on September 3, 2012, and the complainant submitted a claim for Rs. 3,14,767 for repairs. But, the insurance company denied the claim on the grounds that the complainant’s name was incorrectly mentioned in the policy.
The complainant not settling with this decision, took the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar. The District Commission, after examining all the evidence, ordered the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 3,14,767 and an additional Rs. 5,000 as compensation.
Unsatisfied with the District Commission’s verdict, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand. However, he didn’t appear before the State Commission, leading to an ex-parte proceeding against him.
Upon review, the State Commission noticed the mismatch between the insured name in the policy and the complainant’s name. The policy was, in fact, in the name of the person from whom the truck was purchased. The commission also observed that the complainant failed to provide any proof of the transfer of ownership or any documentation indicating that he had informed the insurance company of the change and requested a modification in the insurance certificate.
As per Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it’s mandatory to transfer insurance within 14 days of transferring the vehicle’s ownership. The State Commission concluded that the complainant had not complied with this rule. They believed that the District Commission made an error in their decision by overlooking this significant provision.
Therefore, the State Commission decided in favor of the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company and overruled the District Commission’s order.
The takeaway from this case is the importance of ensuring that all necessary details are correct and updated when purchasing and transferring vehicle insurance. Critical provisions, like the one in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should not be overlooked as it can impact the outcome of a dispute.
