Date of filing:06.05.2013
Date of disposal:25.08.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 25th day of August, 2014
C.C.No.56/2014
Between:
1. Smt.Shyamalamma w/o Late M. Rajasekhar Reddy.
2. M.Pavan Kumar, Aged about 14 years.
3. M.Pranay Kumar, Aged about 12 years.
Complainants 2 & 3 are minors,
Rep. by its next friend mother Smt. Shyamalamm,
4. M.Anjamma W/o China Hanumantha Reddy.
5. M.Chinna Hanumantha Reddy S/o Late Hanuma Reddy,
All are residing D.No.5/60A, Agrampalli,
Madakasira Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainants
Vs.
1. Anil Kumar S/o Vasanth Reddy,
Tractor Driver, Near Anjaneyaswamy Temple,
I.D.Halli Village, Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District,
Karnataka.
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, Opp: APSRTC Bus Stand,
Hindupur,
Anantapur District.
3. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Subhash Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri H.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.Rajasekhar Goud, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 and the 1st Opposite Party called absent and set exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards sum assured with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident i.e., 25.02.2011 to till the date of payment, Rs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainants are the permanent residents of Agrampalli Village and the 1st opposite party is the driver of the tractor at the time of accident who drove the vehicle and the opposite parties 2 & 3 are the insurers of the said Tractor. The 1st complainant is the wife of the deceased M. Rajasekhar Reddy and the complainants 2 & 3 are minor sons of the deceased and the complainants 4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy. The 1st complainant is the wife of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy who is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-J-1612 with trailer bearing No.AP-02-J-8564. The husband of the 1st complainant i.e., deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per year. On 25.02.2011 the deceased, 1st complainant and the 1st opposite party who was the driver of the tractor went to C.Kodigepalli in order to get mulberry leaf at about 4.00 P.M. when the tractor reached near Samakkagari Kunta, the tractor being driven by the 1st opposite party with high speed at that time the left front wheel of the said Tractor detached from the tractor and the driver lost control over the vehicle as a result the tractor fell in to a road side ditch. At that time the deceased who was seated by the side of the driver jumped from the vehicle and fell in between the front and rear wheels of the said tractor and sustained multiple injuries and the 1st complainant also fell down from tailor and sustained some injuries. Subsequently some persons who observed the accident called 108 Ambulance and 1st complainant’s husband he was taken to Government Hospital, Hindupur. Later the 1st complainant’s husband died at Government Hospital on 25.02.2011 at about 9.20 P.M. The police have conducted inquest on 26.02.2011 and on the same day postmortem was conducted on the deceased body. The complainants submit that the tractor and tailor has got valid insurance at the time of the accident under the policy bearing No.551003/31/10/6700001067 and the period of coverage is from 22.07.2010 to 21.07.2011 and the insurance amount is paid by one K.Mallikarjinappa who was the owner of the Tractor and Tailor at the time of insurance. Later the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy bought the Tractor from K.Mallikarjinappa and got transferred the same in to his name. Hence as per the insurance claim the deceased’s legal heirs are eligible to get insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. On 28.11.2012 the complainants 1 to 3 got issued a legal notice to 3rd opposite party demanding for the payment of the insurance amount but the opposite parties failed to settle the claim and there was no reply from the opposite parties 1 to 3 which shows their negligence and caused deficiency of service for which they are liable to pay to the complainants.
3. 1st Opposite Party called absent and set exparte.
4. Counter filed by the 3rd opposite party stating that it is true that this opposite party have issued insurance policy bearing No.551003/31/10/6700001067 in favour of one K.Mallikarjunappa for his vehicle i.e., Tractor cum Trailer bearing No.AP-02-J-1612 and AP-02-J-8564 for a period from 22.07.2010 to 21.07.2011. The 3rd opposite party further submitted that as per document No.5 of the present complaint i.e., R.C. of the said vehicle which was transferred in the name of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy and the transfer of ownership is with effect from 23.07.2010 but the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy. Unless the policy is transferred in favour of the deceased the complainants are not entitled to claim insurance amount under Personal Accident claim. If the policy is to be transferred in favour of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy he has to pay a separate premium of Rs.50/- towards transfer of policy and that to within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the said vehicle as per M.V.Act. Where as in the instant case the deceased did not pay any amount to transfer of policy and even not submitted any application for transfer of policy prior to his death. Further the 3rd opposite party submitted that there is no any transaction between the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy and the opposite parties 2 & 3 so there is no liability on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3 and there is no consumer relationship between the deceased and the opposite parties 2 & 3. Further this opposite party submits that, if the insured owner is driving the insured vehicle and in case of his death in an accident then only Personal Accident will cover as per the terms and conditions of the policy but whereas the deceased is not the person who has insured the said vehicle and he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence the question of liability on the part of the opposite parties does not arise. Hence there is no relationship between the opposite parties and the deceased the present claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter of 3rd opposite party.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the complainants have filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 document.
8. Heard both sides
9. POINT NO 1:- The counsel for the complainants submitted that the 1st complainant husband M.Rajasekhar Reddy has purchased the Tractor from one K.Mallikarjunappa and the same was transferred on 23.07.2010 as per the R.C. of A.P.02-J-1612 and AP-02-J-8564. The counsel for the complainants submitted that the 1st complainant’s husband M.Rajasekhar Reddy and the 1st complainant were accompanying in their tractor from C.Kodigepalli and 1st opposite party has the tractor driver. At about 4.00 P.M. when their tractor reached Samakkagari Kunta left front wheel of the said tractor got detached from the Tractor and the driver lost control over the vehicle and as a result the tractor fell in to a road side ditch at that time the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy was sitting by the side of the driver and jumped from the vehicle and fell in between the front and rear wheels of the said tractor and sustained multiple injuries. The 1st complainant also fell from the trailer and sustained some injuries. Later the 1st complainant and the deceased were shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur. At about 9.20 P.M. on 25.02.2011 the said M.Rajasekhar Reddy died in the hospital and the inquest was conducted on 26.02.2011 and postmortem was also conducted on the body of the deceased. The counsel for the complainants argued that the said tractor and trailer involved in the accident was registered in the name of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy and the said deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy died in the accident while travelling in the said vehicle hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation under Personal Accident claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the insurance policy. Further the counsel for the complainants argued that on 28.11.2012 the complainants 1 to 3 got issued legal notice to 3rd opposite party demanding payment of the insurance amount and the same was served on the 3rd opposite party, but the opposite parties have failed to settle the claim and even there was no reply from the opposite parties. Hence, there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim and thereby caused deficiency of service for which the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants as claimed.
10. The counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 submitted that there is no dispute with regard to issuing of the policy to the said tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-02-J-1612 and AP-02-J-8564 for the period from 22.07.2010 to 21.07.2011 in favour of one K. Mallikarjunappa. The counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that as per the document No.5 of the present complaint the R.C. of the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy and transfer of ownership is with effect form 23.07.2010. Further the counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy. Unless the policy is transferred in favour of the deceased the complainants are not entitled to claim the insurance amount under personal accident claim. If the policy wants to be transferred in favour of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy he has to pay a separate premium of Rs.50/- towards transfer of policy within stipulated period of 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the said vehicle as per M.V. Act. In the present case the deceased did not pay any amount towards transfer of policy and not even submitted any application for transfer of policy prior to his death. The counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that as there is no transaction between the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy and the opposite parties 2 & 3, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. Further the counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that there is no consumer relationship between the deceased and the opposite parties as he has not at all a policyholder as per the insurance policy. Further the counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that personal accident claim can be claimed only when the person in whose name the insurance policy is taken should be driving the vehicle at that time of accident and in the present case some other person was driving the said vehicle and the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy was sitting by the side of the driver at the time of the accident. Further the counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 argued that in the above circumstances the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
11. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents submitted by both sides as per the arguments of the complainant counsel no about the vehicle was transferred in the name of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy with effect from 23.07.2010 as per Ex.A5 which is registration certificate of the said tractor. But as per the arguments of the opposite parties 2 & 3 the Ex.B1 which is insurance policy is in the name of K. Mallikarjunappa. The argument of the complainant is that as the vehicle was registered in the name of deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy the opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainants as per personal accident claim. But the argument of the complainant cannot be considered as the said policy of the vehicle was in the name of one K.Mallikarjunappa as per the M.V.Act section 157 where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred with effect from the date of its transfer provided with such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and the policy of insurance and transfer shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer of prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.
12. Further the case of law submitted by the counsel for the complainant where it is specifically mentioned that “ it is only in respect of third party risks that section 157 of the new Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred the above case law clearly shows that the transfer of registration stands good only in case of third party claims but where as in the instance case it is a personal accident claim. Hence, the act clearly specifies that the necessary changes should be brought within 14 days from the date of transfer of registration. Where as in the present case the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy has not made any application for transfer of policy in to his name due his life time. In the above circumstances the complainants are not entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties. Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.
13. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 25th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No.14/2011 dt.26.02.2011.
Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet in crime No.14/11 Under section 304(A)
IPC of Madakasira P.S.
Ex.A3 Certified copy of Inquest Report of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy
dt.26.02.2011.
Ex.A4 Certified copy of Post Mortem of the deceased M.Rajasekhar Reddy
dt.26.02.2011.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of R.C.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of the policy bearing No. 551003/31/10/6700001067 issued
by Opposite parties dt.22.07.2010.
Ex.A7 Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainants 1 to 3 to
the 3rd opposite party dt.28.11.2012.
Ex.A8 Served postal ack.,
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 3
Ex.B1 Insurance Policy bearing No.551003/31/10/6700001067 issued by the
Opposite parties
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
