Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

his driving licence had expired on 7.5.04 and it was renewed only on 27.10.2004 i.e.,after the accident. Besides, as per the permit, the taxi - cab had a maximum seatingcapacity of six including the driver and at the material time of accident, the vehicle wascarrying 11 persons. In view of these serious violations of the M. V. Act and policycondition, the insurer had repudiated the claim. On detailed examination of the recordsled before this Forum, it was established that the complainant had committed seriousviolations of the law. He had not renewed his licence for nearly 5 months after is expiryand his vehicle had carried almost double the number of passengers permitted underthe rules. In the aforesaid circumstances, the repudiation of the claim was foundjustifiable and hence the complaint was dismissed.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI - 227 of 2004 - 2005Shri Deepak S. PawarVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 5.5.2005Shri Deepak S. Pawar, had taken a Policy to cover his Car. The vehicle met with anaccident while proceeding to Pune when an oncoming vehicle dashed at the turning.Shri Deepak S. Pawar, submitted the claim to the Insurance Company and the companydeputed their surveyor to assess the loss. Thereafter they repudiated the claim as perGeneral Rule No. 17 of policy on the ground that the RC book recorded the name ofShri Tushar S. Pawar and not Shri D. S. Pawar possibly due to transfer of the vehiclewhich rendered the contract and the policy inoperative as per Indian Motor Tariff andMotor Vehicles Act. Shri D. S. Pawar, approached the Ombudsman by his letter dated12.7.2004 seeking his intervention in the matter of settlement of claim.On analysis of the records, it is observed that as per the R. C. book the vehicle MH-15 / AH / 6323 was covered under the policy in the name of Shri Deepak S. Pawar from4.3.2003 to 3.3.2004. The vehicle was then transferred, as per R. C. book, in the nameof Shri Tushar S. Pawar on 21.7.2003. Although the vehicle was transferred to ShriTushar S. Pawar and an endorsement on RC Book was recorded in RTO the InsuranceCompany was not informed about transfer of Insurance and vehicle consequentlycancellations of earlier insurance and transfer of insurance to the new Owner. Thecompany has stated that the insured had preferred the claim on 6.1.2004 and it wasobserved from the R. C. book that the insurance was not transferred within 14 daysfrom the date of transfer effected in the R. C. book. i.e. 21.7.2003 which is theprovision as per General Rule 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. In terms of the aboveprovision, as on the date of accident, there was no Insurable Interest of Shri Tushar S.Pawar in the said vehicle as the Insurance was still in the name of Shri Deepak S.Pawar.Motor Insurance is governed by All India Motor Tariff, which is in line with MotorVehicles Act, which is a Statutory Act and compliance with the provisions of the Act ismandatory. As per GR 17 which is a Tariff provison, the change in ownership has to benoted with the Insurance Company within 14 days of the Sale / transfer of the vehicle.In this case, the change of transfer of ownership was not communicated to theinsurance company, hence the Company’s decision to repudiate the claim is heldsustainable.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI - 496 of 2004 - 2005