CHANDRESH RAMESHCHANDRA DAVE Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in this revision petition relates to whether a consumer, who has purchased a vehicle (a maruti car in this case) by obtaining a loan from a financer (Ranveer Finance Co. Ltd. in this case) and when the insurance cover had not been transferred in favour of the loanee/purchaser and the insurance cover note continued to reflect the name of the financer as the insured; the loanee/purchaser would be entitled to any benefit/indemnification under the policy in case of the theft of the vehicle?

(2.) THE answer obviously would be no. This would be so for the simple reason that the terms of insurance being in the nature of a contract have to be interpreted as they exist on the cover note/insurance document. THE consumer fora on grounds of equity or otherwise cannot import extraneous considerations to extend the benefit if the terms of the document did not mention anything in that regard. THE law on this subject by now is very well settled and we may with advantage refer to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 221], which has been followed by this Commission in the cases of Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)] and Dharmendra Nath Thakur & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (RP No. 221 of 2006 decided on 29th of January, 2010). THE reason for this is simple. If the insurance cover has not been extended or transferred in favour of the new purchaser, obviously there would be no privity of contract between the insurer and such purchaser and, therefore, latter would have no insurable interest. In this case, even though the vehicle had been purchased by the complainant by availing loan from the financier unfortunately the insurance cover continued to remain in the name of the financer. Page 46 of the paper-book, which is a copy of the insurance cover note, against the column Name and Address of Insured clearly states Ranveer Finance Ltd., 16, Vikas Apartment, Nr. Don Bosco Eng. School, Ahmedabad-51 . THE name of the complainant is conspicuous by its absence, which would disentitle him to acquire a locus to lodge a claim for indemnification of loss suffered by him. While we sympathize with the complainant for the loss suffered as a result of his vehicle being stolen, the legal position does not support his case to claim any benefit under the insurance cover as it exists and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Commission has in any way committed any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in its finding.