AFTAB KHATIB Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.10.2012, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') inFANo. 24/12, M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aftab Khatib, vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order dated 9.8.2012 in Mr. Colaco, whereas the vehicle was in the name of the petitioner and hence, the claim was not payable. The complainant/petitioner then filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting that the OP should be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,399 along with interest@18%p.a. from 19.8.2009 till realisation, and a sum of Rs. 5,000 be given for litigation cost. The damages for the period of delay by way of interest should alsobe given.

(2.) The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,399 along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 19.8.2009 and also awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 5,000. However, an appeal made against this order was allowed by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The State Commission placed reliance on certain judgments, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Commission and concluded that the insurer had no liability towards the complainant as the latter had no insurance policy issued in his name. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of arguments at admission stage before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle had been duly purchased by him from the original owner and then got transferred to his name by following the required procedure. The insurance policy should be deemed to have been transferred in his name, once the ownership was transferred, and hence the Insurance Company was liable to pay the claim to him. The learned Counsel stated that the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law and should be upheld. However, the order passed by the State Commission did not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts on record and the legal position.