M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAM PRAKASH RATURI

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 21-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 1 S.C.R 976 
't-
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
v 
RAM PRAKASH RATURI 
(Civil Appeal No. 550 of 2008) 
. JANUARY 21, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
>-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
" 
Claim for compensation for damages of insured vehicle 
- Facts whereupon National Commission based its findings c 
stated to be disputed - HELD: National Commission disposed 
of the matter without considering relevant factors - Matter 
remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law -
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
In the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company D 
,l. 
against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes 
..; 
Redressal Commission containing the observations that 
the basic facts about ownership of the vehicle, inter alia, 
the name of insured, the fact of transfer/registration of 
vehicle in the name of the complainant, were not disputed, E 
it was contended for the appellant that the facts were 
disputed and the National Commission erred in its 
conclusion. 
1', 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: In the judgment of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, it was noted as if there 
was no dispute that when the vehicle was insured the 
registration certificate had been seen by the insurance 
company. It was also noted that there was no dispute that G 
---I ' .. ,\ 
the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the 
complainant. In fact, there was categorical dispute about 
this fact. It is, therefore, clear that the National Commission 
disposed of the revision petition without considering the 
relevant factors. In the circumstances, the order of the H 
976 
] 
977 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A National Commission is set aside and the matter is 
'( 
remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with 
law. [para 7-8] [980-D, E, F] 
G Govindass vs. New Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 
8 
1.398 - referred to. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 550 
of 2008. 
>\ 
• 
(From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2005 of 
c 
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 330 of 2005 
P.R. Sikka and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellant. 
8.D. Sharma and Deep Shikha Bharti for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
.. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
E Delhi (in short 'National Commission') in Revision Petition 
No.330 of 2005. By the impugned order, the revision petition 
was dismissed. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
F 
Respondent lodged a claim with the appellant claiming 
/-t 
compensation for carnages caused to the vehicle No.UP 07/A-
0234. It was stated that the same was an Ambassador Taxi. 
. The claim was repudiated by the appellant primarily on the 
ground that the policy of insurance was issued in the name of 
Smt. Roopa Sharma Clo Abdul Gaffar, 31/1, Muslim Colony, 
G Dehradun, therefore, such claim was not entertained. Dispute 
,-r 
( 
was raised before the District Consumer Redressal Forum (for 
short 'District Forum'). Claim was made for Rs.42,000/-. In the 
claim petition it was stated that the vehicle in question was 
purchased from Smt. Roopa Sharma and due registration was 
H made by RTO, Dehradun and the appellant was duly informed 
MIS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. 
978 
RAM PRAKASH RATURI [PASAYAT, J.) 
about the transfer. The premium was received and insurance A 
coverage was granted for the period from 16.9.1999 to 
15.9.2000. It was stated that relevant documents were produced 
before the appellant and notwithstanding the knowledge about 
the transfer of the ownership, the claim was rejected. The 
appellant filed objections to the claim petition and took the stand B 
that the policy was in respect of own damage. The vehicle which 
~ 
was the subject matter of insurance stood in the name of Smt. 
Roopa Sharma. Therefore, in the absence of transfer of 
) 
ownership or any information in that regard, the insurance 
company was not required to liquidate the claim. 
c 
District Forum was of the view that the insurance company 
was liable to pay Rs.29,535/- towards the damages of 
complainant's vehicle. He was also entitled to interest @10% 
after 27.7.2000 i.e. the date of rejection of the claim and from 
1.8.2000 till the payment to the complainant. Rs.5,000/- as D 
t 
compensation 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.