Date of filing:-20/07/2017                                                                                                                                                                                          Date of Order/Judgement:-09/01/2023.                                         

                     DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 34  OF  2017

 Deba Naik, S/o. Shyama Naik, aged about 32 years, Occupation- Cultivation and Business, R/o. And P.o. Bankipali, P.s./Tahasil. S.Rampur, Dist. Subarnapur (Odisha)

                                                                                               ….       .....        Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

(1) The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, DO-2-Bhubaneswar,

      At-75, Budha Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha (Odisha), Pin-751006.

 (2) The Branch Manager, Oriental insurance Company Limited, Bargarh Branch,

        Bargarh,        At. Canal Avenue, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                                                   ....      .....       Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant: -        :- Sri  M.K. Satapathy with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 and No.2 :- :- Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with Associates.  

                                           -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.09/01/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The Cae of the Complainant is that Pradip Pradhan, R/o. Oruali, Po. Mahapur, Puri is a bonafide Consumer of Oriental Insurance Company being the insurance policy holder vide policy No. 3458000131/2017/4013. He has raised the said policy for his mini Truck bearing Redg No. OR-O2AX-9491 having Engine No. 4971C99EWZ817024 and chasis No. MAT3823398E12899. For the said policy Pradip  Pradhan had paid the requisite premium. The policy was valid when  Pradip Pradhan had sold the aforesaid vehicle and delivered possession thereof to the Complainant and accordingly the R.C. Book has also been corrected in favour of the Complainant. On ¾.01.2017 the Vehicle of the Complainant while was palying from Rairakhol onwards all on a sudden met  with accident under k Kishorenagar, P.s. The mater of accident was duly reported by the Complainant before the Kishorenagar Police Station. For the accident various body parts of the Vehicle and engine were damaged Completely and the driver of the vehicle namely Raju Mirdha, S/o. Dhanpati Mirdha also sustained injuries. The Complainant is entitled for insurance claim as the insurance policy was intact by then. Accordingly the Complainant has placed the insurance claim before the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has also furnished relevant documents. Instead of settling the claim of the Complainant they have deffered the matter on different plea. The Complainant sent a pleader notice on 04/03/2017 to disburse the insurance claim. The Opposite parties received the notice but remained silent. The Opposite Party No.2 has sent a reply formally trying escape from his Liabilities without causing solve of the cause of the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2. The case of the Opposite Parties is that  the Opposite Parties filed their version and pleaded that the Complainant is not a Consumer of the Opposite Parties as per definition  of  Consumer Provided by Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is further case of the Opposite Parties that neither the insured nor the Complainant have lodged any claim with the Opposite Parties. Further the Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant has not taken any step to get the policy transferred in his name within the stipulated period prescribed in section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act and GR 17 of India Motor Tariff. The Complainant is not the Consumer of the Opposite Parties and thus the question of rendering any service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant does not arise at all so as to attract the clause deficiency in service.
3. After perusal of the documents filed by both the parties the following issues are framed :-

ISSUES:-

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the Opposite parties after change of ownership of the vehicle Regd No. OR-02AX-9491 in his name ?
2. Are the Opposite Parties deficient in providing service to the Complainant ?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?

Issue No.1. 

            The alleged vehicle Regd No. OR-02AX-9491 stands registered in the name of the Complainant after transfer from Original owner. At the time of accident insurance policy was valid and the insured is Pradeep Pradhan. The Principle laid down in section 157 of the Motyor vehicle Act 1988 is very specific.

            When one party wishes to transfer ownership of vehcle, he has also to transfer the insurance policy to the new owner. The Policy shall deem to be transferred to new owner from the d ate of its transfer.

            The Procedure prescribed are:-

1. The transferee shall have to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer to make necessary changes with concerned authority.
2. The registering authority on specific request from the transferee along with consent letter of transferor can make necessary change of ownership.
3. Fresh application form duly filled up is required for package policies to cover liability.
4. Fees of Rs.50/-(Rupees fifty) only is to be paid for issuance of fresh certificate in the name of the transferee.

In the present case the ownership in R.C. Book changed but the policy is not transferred by insurer to transferee. No contract exists between the Complainant and the Opposite parties. Accordingly the Complainant is not a Consumer of the Opposite Partis. Decision of Supreme Court of India referred M/s Complete Insulation (P) Ltd  Vrs  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 856.

                        Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the Opposite parties.

Issue No.2.

When the Complainant is not a Consumer of the Opposite parties, deficiency in service made by the Opposite Parties does not arise.

Issue No.3.

            Accordingly as discussed  Supra the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            Accordingly it is Ordered.

O R D E R

The Complaint is dismissed on contest. The Complainant is not entitled for relief as claimed for.

Order pronounced in open court on this 09^th day of  January 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties. 

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                           and corrected by me.                                                                                           

                 I  agree/-                                                                       

       ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)                                                                  (Jigeesha Mishra)

              Dt.09/01/2023                                                                            Dt.09/01/2023

           UPLOADED BY

(SRI DUSMANTA PADHAN)

     OFFICE ASSISTANT.