NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DILIP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party before the District Forum against order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No.276/2004 by which the appellant Insurance Company was ordered to pay Rs.20,193 as amount of damage to the vehicle assessed by the Surveyor after deducting the amount of Rs.1,500 as salvage along with interest @ 9% p. a. and further to pay Rs.1,000 as amount of costs.

(2.) The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : that on 29.10.2004 the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum inter alia stating that he had purchased a Maruti Car from one Narendra Parakh of Beawar on 15.6.2004 and not he same day the car was registered in his name. It was further stated in the complaint that the said car was originally purchased by Narendra Parakh and the insurance was in the name of Narendra Parakh for the period from 22.4.2004 to 21.4.2005. It was further stated in the complaint that on 28.6.2004 the car had met with an accident and damage was got done in the car. It was further stated in the complaint that as soon as the accident had taken place the information was given by the respondent to the appellant and the Surveyor was appointed and claim was preferred by the respondent before the Insurance Company, the appellant. But the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant through letter dated 1.10.2004 that no doubt the registration of the vehicle was changed in the name of the respondent but in the policy the name of the respondent was not entered and, therefore, as per terms of the policy the claim was not payable and the same was rejected. Thereafter the complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellant before the District Forum and the same stand was taken which was taken in the repudiation letter and it was further stated that since there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the appellant the complainant-respondent was not a consumer and thus the claim was rightly repudiated. The District Forum after hearing both the parties accepted the complaint of the respondent and passed the impugned order as stated above inter alia holding that since the registration of the vehicle was in the name of the respondent and since as per Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment. Aggrieved from that order this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company.

(3.) In this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since on the date of accident there was no subsisting contract between the appelant and the complainant, therefore, Insurance Company should have not been held liable and thus the Forum had committed serious illegality in passing the impugned order and further it was argued that so far as applicability of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned the same was not applicable in the present case as that section could be made applicable in case of claim filed by third parties and not in the claim as filed by the respondent complainant.