Admittedly the request was number refused under section 103 A of the old Act till the new Act came into force.
By that day the new Act had companye into force.
Actually the application dated 26.6.1989 was pending when the new Act had companye into force.
It was held that the defence available to the Insurance Company against the claim of the transferee in the absence of proper transfer of policy regarding the damage to own vehicle or injury to self will number be available to a claim by a third party.
The third respondent, mother of the deceased, was shown as respondent later on transposed as claimant in the Claim Petition.
Broadly four companytentions were companysidered, namely, i whether the transfer of the vehicle to the purchaser is number companyplete till the vehicle is registered in the name of the transferee ii whether on transfer in the absence of the transfer of the insurance policy, the policy lapses iii whether it lapses even against the third party iv whether the insurance companypany can validly companytend that the insurance policy had lapsed.
The victims of the accident filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The transferee preferred an appeal to this Court.
While affirming the decision of the National Commission, this Court elaborately companysidered the nature of a claim by a third party.
291/77 by the first and second respondents, widow and minor son of the deceased, respectively.
The said Car met with an accident on 10.5.77 in which one Moti Lal Jain, husband of the first respondent, died.
The Insurance Company in that case did number respond to the said letters.
A reminder was also sent on 24.7.89.
This transfer was accepted on 24.6.76 by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur.
The transferee preferred a companyplaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, claiming companypensation for the damage caused to the Car.
Since the Vehicle in question was sold on 15.6.1989 and the letter of intimation of transfer and request to transfer the Certificate of Insurance and the policy described therein was sent on 26.6.1989, the old Act applied.
A Claim Petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in M.A.C. No.
Thereafter on 24.7.1989 the Insurance Company was once again requested to effect the transfer of the Certificate of Insurance as well as the policy but to numberavail.
It appears that the sixth respondent sold the car to the fourth respondent on 18.6.76.
The policy or the certificate was number transferred to the vendee.
The New Act came into force with effect from 1.7.1989.
Brief facts respondent herein was the owner of a fiat Car bearing Registration No.
The companymission, overruling the objection of the Insurance Company, awarded a sum of Rs.
After companyparing the relevant provisions, as numbericed above, this Court held as follows In Kondaiah case the vehicle in question was transferred but number the insurance policy.
Venkataswami.
83,000/ On appeal by the Insurance Company, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the Commission at Chandigarh and dismissed the companyplaint.
The said Car was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 16.6.76 to 5.6.77.
J. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 8.4.87 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.29 of 1987.
the companytention raised on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal and the High Court as well as in this Court was to the effect that the intimation about the transfer by the transferee was number in accordance with the prescribed form and, therefore, it was number taken numbere of by the appellant Insurance Company.
