Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/49/2015

Gumminenipalem Tippu Sulthan, S/o. G.S. Masthan Saheb - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd., By its Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                             Filing Date:-16-11-2015                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:-10-03-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                           Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

                                       FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.49/2015

Between

1. Gumminenipalem Tippu Sulthan,

S/o. G.S. Masthan Saheb,

Muslim, aged 42 years,

Formerly R/at: D.No. 18-2,

Abdul Sugar Street,

Polur Taluk,

Tiruvannamalai,

Presently at D.No. 1-310,

Snadu Street,

Damalacheruvu,

Pakala Mandal,

Chittoor District.

 

2. J.Navarthna Kumar,

S/o. Jawarharlal Jain,

Aged 50 years,

R/at: D.No. 2-8,

Abdul Sugar Street,

Polur Taluk,

Tiruvannamalai-606803,

Tamilnadu State.                                                                     … Complainants

 

And

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

By its Authorized Signatory,

No.276-277, New No.497-498, 5^th Floor,

Poonamalai High Road,

I.K.Buildings,

Chennai – 600 016.

 

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Regd., Office, By its Authorized Signatory,

G.E.Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerawada,

Pune – 411 006.                                                                  … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 23.02.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G. Guruparasad, and P.Dwaraka Nadha Reddy, counsels for the complainants and Sri. K.Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 14 of the C.P.Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the I.D. Value of Rs.6,81,859/- covered under the policy and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and also to meet the garage charges and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

         2.The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant no.1 submits that actually the complainant no.2 purchased the car of SKODA RAPID ELEGANCE in 2012 bearing Registration No. TN-25-AC-5461 and he took the insurance policy No. OG-15-1501-1801-00004807 for the period from 10.05.2014 to 09.05.2015 issued by the opposite party no.1 with I.D. Value of Rs.6,81,859/-. The complainant no.1 further submits that he purchased the said vehicle on 28.11.2014 for valid consideration from the complainant no.2 who is a previous owner and same was endorsed by the registering authority, Transport Department, Thiruvannamalai and the transfer certificate was received by post on 01.12.2014. The complainant further submits that unfortunately on the same day i.e.01.12.2014 at about 6-25 P.M. the vehicle involved in road accident due to the negligence of the driver of the car dashed against the auto and in the result case was registered in Pakala Police Station in crime No.147/14 and same was intimated to the opposite party no.1 on 02.12.2014 and a surveyor was also deputed to the spot of the accident and inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. Thereafter the complainant was handed over the damaged vehicle to Gurudev Motor Private Limited, Chennai for estimation of repairs. The above said Gurudev Motors gave invoice for Rs.7,55,071-87 Ps who is the authorized service centre of SKODA.

          3.  The complainant further submits that he submitted the claim to the opposite parties and the claim was registered as No.00013915. The opposite party No.1 issued a letter to the complainant No.1 on 07.02.2015 stating that the complainant No.1 is not having any insurable contract with them, though the ownership of the vehicle was transferred on 28.11.2014 by Mr. J.Navarathna Kumar (Complainant No.2) and requested him to explain within 7 days how he is entitled for insurance coverage. But he gave reply on 11.02.2015 by stating that the policy was in force on the date of the accident though the policy was in the name of the transferor i.e. complainant No.2 but the vehicle was registered on dt: 28.11.2014 issued by the competent authority was received by him only on 01.12.2014 and requested opposite party to settle the claim and further requested the opposite party to pay the parking charges at the garage where the vehicle was left for repairs. It was duly acknowledged by the opposite party no.1 and 2. Later the opposite parties sent a letter dt:03.03.2015 to the complainant No.1 by repudiating the claim covered under the policy stating that the insurance policy was taken by one J. Navarathna Kumar and also the transferor failed to transfer the policy in his favour and no intimation was given regarding the transfer of ownership from complainant No.2 to complainant No.1 and as such there is no privity of contract between the insurer and the complainant No.1 and further added that he failed to apply within 14 days from the date of the transfer in writing under record delivery to the insurer with details of the registration of the vehicle as per G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. Hence the opposite party no.1 finally issued another letter on 21.03.2015 that they are unable to process his claim and the same stands repudiated.

          4. The complainant further submits that the Gurudev Motors where the complainant gave the vehicle for repairs insisted to pay labour charges, a sum of Rs.33,708/- and he paid as per invoice dt:31.03.2015 in the name of complainant No.2. As the opposite parties failed to consider the claim and repudiated the claim hence he caused a legal notice dt: 25.05.2015 regarding the repudiation of the claim was un just and the policy was in force by the date of the accident. Further the Transfer certificate from the registering authority dt: 28.11.2014 was received on 01.12.2014 by the complainant No.1. Hence on those circumstances he could not apply for transfer of policy to his name in the place of previous owner and requested to reconsider the claim within 7 days. Else, he will constrain to file the consumer complaint in Consumer Forum. The complainant further submits that even though the policy was in the name of the original owner i.e. complainant No.2 he shall not be entitled to get the claim because he already sold the vehicle in favour of the complainant prior to the accident and also as per general regulation No.10 revised motor tariff, on transfer of the vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrues to the new owner. Even after receipt of the notice opposite parties failed to consider the claim and repudiated the claim which is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence he filed the present complaint.        

         5.  The opposite parties came in to appearance and filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and specifically admitted here under and stated as follows. The opposite party admitted the policy  which was taken by the complainant No.2 Sri.J.Navarathna Kumar on 10.05.2012 and the policy period was 10.05.2014 to 09.05.2015 with policy No. OG-15-1501-1801-00004807 as “private car-package policy”. And the said car met with an accident on 01.12.2014 near Pakala due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car and the case was registered against driver as crime No. 147/2014 by Station House Officer, Pakala Police Station and the complainant No.1 intimated on 02.12.2014 about the accident and surveyor was appointed and after receipt of the survey report the opposite party learnt that the policy was taken by one J.Navarathna Kumar  complainant No.2 and he sold the vehicle to one G.Tippu Sulthan i.e. the complainant No.1 and opposite party registered said claim as claim No.OG-15-1501-1801-00013915 and to that effect the transfer of ownership dt:28.11.2014 was endorsed in his name and the policy is in the name of complainant No.2 Navarathan Kumar neither complainant No.1 nor the complainant No.2 Tippu Sulthan intimated the transfer of ownership to the opposite party and as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As there is no insurance of contract between the complainant No.1and the opposite parties and same was intimated through a letter calling for explanation and reasons for non intimation dt:07.02.2015 and the complainant No.1 gave a reply stating that he purchased the said vehicle with transfer endorsement dt:28.11.2014 and he received the same from RTA Tiruvannamalai only on 01.12.2014 and immediately after accident the same was informed to the opposite parties. But the transferee has not stated anything with regard to non taking steps to transfer the policy in his favour after due compliance of provision of G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. The opposite parties further submits that as per S.C. held that 14 days as per provision of Sec.157(2) transfer of certificate of insurance will not applicable to own damage and Sec.157 is applicable to only for third party risks and with respect to other transfers, needs to be referred G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff.

        6. The opposite parties further submits that as per G.R.17 the transferee of the vehicle in required to apply for transfer of insurance policy in writing and that too along with consent of the previous owner of the vehicle. The complainant has neither produced any evidence to prove that he applied for insurance in writing nor he has produced any evidence to show that the previous owner gave his consent for transfer of insurance policy in his name. In the absence of evidence to this effect the present complaint is deserved to be dismissed as the complainant No.1 not properly explained for the non intimation of transfer of vehicle. Hence they repudiated the claim by stating that the policy was taken by one Navarathan Kumar and the said policy stands in his name as there is no privity of contract between the complainant No.1 and opposite parties and accordingly a repudiation letter dt:03.03.2015 was sent to the complainant No.1 duly explaining the reasons for repudiation. The opposite parties further submits that after due investigation only they repudiated the claim as there is no privity of contract between complainant No.1 and opposite parties. And also the complainant failed to file the documents to support of his case to establish the case and how he is entitled for the claim. Hence the allegations mentioned in the complaint is created and invented by the complainant in order to have wrongful gain. Hence the question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        7.  The complainant one Gumminenipalem Tippu Sulthan, S/o. G.J.Masthan Saheb, filed his chief affidavit and Ex.A1to A8 were marked on behalf of him and same was adopted by complainant No.2. The opposite party no.1 one D.Jamadagni, filed his chief affidavit and opposite party no.2 one R.Laxminarayana, S/o. Sri.Shankaraiah filed his additional affidavit and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2. Both  parties  filed  their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       8.  Now the points for consideration are:            

             (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties

                    towards the complainants?      

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

           (iii)  To what Relief?

         9.Point No:-(i).     There is no dispute regarding the policy of the vehicle taken by the complainant No.2 under vide policy no. OG-15-1501-1801-00004807 for the vehicle bearing No.TN-25-AC-5461 from the opposite parties and the policy period was from 10.05.2014 to 09.05.2015 and the same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main contention of the complainant No.1 is, he purchased the vehicle SKODA RAPID bearing No. TN-25-AC-5461 from the complainant No.2 on 28.11.2014 and Registration certificate was transferred to his name from 28.11.2014 and the copy of Registration certificate was received by him by post on 01.12.2014. On the same day evening the vehicle was met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and case was registered in crime No.147/2014 and the said accident was intimated to the opposite party No.1 on 02.02.2014. The surveyor was appointed and he conducted the inspection and filed the report. The complainant No.1 submitted his claim to the opposite parties as the policy was in force by the date of the accident and also the vehicle was transferred and the registration certificate was issued in his name by competent authority under Ex:A1. But the said claim was repudiated by the opposite parties on 21.03.2015 by way of letter on 21.03.2015 under Ex:A6 stating that the insured complainant No.2 failed to transfer the policy in the name of the complainant No.1and no intimation was given regarding the transfer of the ownership to the opposite parties from complainant No.2 to complainant No.1 and there is no privity of contract between the insurer and the complainant No.1 and he failed to apply the transfer within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under record delivery to the insurer with details of registration of vehicle as per G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff.

         10.  The complainant submits that even after several reminders sent by him to the opposite parties have not settled the claim which is nothing but deficiency in service. The complainant further stated that even though the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant but, by the date of the accident the policy was in force and also stated that as per general regulation No.10 revised motor tariff, on transfer of the vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrues to the new owner. Hence the complainant No.1 is entitled to the claim for which the opposite party No.1 declined to consider his claim. The complainant approached the service centre for the repairs of the vehicle they have estimated the repairs of the damaged vehicle for Rs.7,55,071.87Ps and same was sent to the insurance company and also the service centre Gurudev Motors demanded the parking charges and also he paid labour charges of Rs.33,708/- which was paid under invoice dt: 31.03.2015 under Ex:A7. Hence he filed the present complaint.

           The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the claim of the complainant No.1 was admitted and also stated after receipt of the survey report only they came to know that the said vehicle was insured with their company by one Sri. J. Navarathan Kumar and the above said vehicle was sold to one Sri. G.Tippu Sulthan i.e. complainant No.1 and that effect the transfer of ownership dt:28.11.2014 was endorsed his name but the  said policy is in the name of J.Navarathan Kumar and neither complainant No.1 nor complainant No.2 intimated to the transfer of ownership to their company as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no insurance of contract between the complainant No.1 and opposite parties. And also stated that the complainant No.1 has not taken any steps to change the policy in his favour after true compliance of provision of G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. The opposite parties further submits that as per Section 157 Clause (2) of M.V.Act transfer of certificate insurance will not applicable to own damages and Section 157 will applicable to only for the 3^rd opposite party risks and also with respect to transfer needs to be referred G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. Hence as the complainant No.1 not properly explain the reasons for non intimation of the transfer of vehicle hence they repudiated the said claim by stating that the policy was originally taken by complainant No.2 as such policy is in his name. Hence the said claim was repudiated and the same was intimated on 03.03.2015 by explaining the reasons for the repudiation. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the question of deficiency in service does not arise. 

         11. As per the evidence placed on record by both the parties there is no dispute of the policy issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. But the counsel for the opposite parties contended that by the date of the accident i.e.01.12.2014 the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant No.1.But in the Ex:A1 the registration certificate of the vehicle shows an entry was made in the back page of complainant No.1 i.e Tippu Sulthan and same was endorsed in the registration certificate issued by Transport Authority of Tiruvannamalai on 28.11.2014 and same was made at the back page of the Ex:A1. Hence on that entry we may arrived the decision that the G.Tippu Sulthan was the owner of vehicle by the date of the accident i.e.01.12.2014. But the counsel for the opposite parties also contended that mere transfer of ownership is not sufficient to consider the claim. But he had to take necessary steps to transfer the policy by obtaining the consent letter of previous owner by paying requisite fee. But it is necessary to have a look on section 157 of M.V.Act which is reproduced here.

 “Section 157 of M.V.Act:- Transfer of certificate of insurance:

1. Where the person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, transfers to another person the owner ship of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy insurance relating thereto, the certificate on insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.

(Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is here by declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance).

Iii) The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the 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 insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance”.

       12. On reading of the above, it is clear that the complainant No.2 owner of the vehicle transfers the ownership of the vehicle to another person i.e. complainant No.1, the certificate of the insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall automatically get transfer to the transferee of the motor vehicle.

           Hence as per Section 157 (2) of M.V.Act and G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff states that the transferee should apply for the transfer of policy within 14 days from date of transfer of vehicle to the insurer for necessary changes in regard to the affect of transfer in the certificate and the insurance policy. No doubt in the present case, no application of transfer of insurance policy was made U/s 157(2) of M.V.Act:- However, from the record itself clearly shows that the accident took place on 01.12.2014 on the same day the  complainant received the registration certificate of transfer by post. Hence the period of 14 days for applying transfer of insurance policy had not lapsed because he purchased the vehicle on 28.11.2014 and after getting registration he received the registration certificate on 01.12.2014 and on the same day the accident was occurred. Hence the opposite parties cannot take advantage of in compliance of section 157(2) of the M.V.Act because as on the date of the accident the 14 days limitation under G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff was not completed. Hence in the present case the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant No.1 is not justified which clearly shows the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Hence on those circumstances we came to the conclusion that there is clear deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainants. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainants.             

         13. Point No:-(ii).   As already the point no.1 is discussed in favour of the complainants. As per Ex:B1 the insurance was taken by the complainant no.2 on 10.05.2014 and the policy period starts from 10.05.2014 to 09.05.2015 as on the date of the policy, the opposite parties mentioned that the I.D. value of the vehicle was fixed as Rs.6,81,859/- and within six months of taking of the policy the vehicle met with an accident and also it was mentioned in the Ex:B1 in the policy copy and that the insurer paid the premium towards own damage. Hence it is proper to grant the I.D. value of the vehicle. Hence on those circumstances the complainant No.1 is entitled to the I.D. value of vehicle Rs.6,81,859/- covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization as already the complainant No.2 sold the vehicle to complainant No.1.In spite of repeated requests and notices issued by the complainant after submission of his claim which as acknowledged by the opposite parties and repudiated the claim certainly amounts to not only deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties but also it appears un fair trade practice on part of the opposite parties. Hence under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and for deficiency in service and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

      14.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards  the complainant. Hence this complaint is allowed accordingly.

         In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part, directing the opposite parties            1 and 2 to jointly and severally to pay the I.D. Value of Rs.6,81,859/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty one thousand eight hundred and fifty nine only)  covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till realization and the opposite parties         1 and 2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the above said compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of March, 2017.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-

   Lady Member                                                                                                            President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/s

 

PW-1: Gumminenipalem Tippu Sulthan (Chief Affidavit filed).

                                                                                                                                 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

RW-1: D. Jamadagni (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: R. Laxminarayana (Additional Chief Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Original copy of transfer of ownership of regd. Vehicle TN25-AC-5461 by the office of Registering Authority, Tiruvannamalai. Form of Certificate of Registration dated: 12.04.2012. Dt: 28.11.2014.
2.	True copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.147/2014 under Section 304(A) IPC, 337 & 279  IPC in respect of the road accident of the registered vehicle TN-25-AC-5461. Dt: 02.12.2014.
3.	True copy of accident vehicle inspector report from M.V. Inspector, Chittoor in respect of the vehicle TN-25-AC-5461. Dt: 08.12.2014.
4.	Office copy of Reply to the Opposite party No.1 by the complainant No.1. Dt: 11.02.2015.
5.	Letter from Gurudev Motors Pvt. Ltd., to the complainant No.1 stating that the Insurance company is not giving approval for the claim and to pay parking charges at Rs.500/- per day for the vehicle from the date of receive. Dt: 24.02.2015.
6.	Another letter by the opposite party No.1 that the claim stand repudiated. Dt: 21.03.2015.
7.	Original Receipt cum Retail Invoice for Rs.33,708/- towards labour charges for the damaged vehicle TN-25-AC-5461.  Dt: 31.03.2015.
8.	Office copy of Rejoinder–cum-Legal Notice to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 by the complainant No.1. Dt: 20.05.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	True copy of policy issued in favour of J. Navarathna Kumar with terms and conditions filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Period of Insurance Dt: 10.05.2014 to 09.05.2015. Policy issued on 10.05.2014
2.	Private and confidential motor preliminary survey report issued by insurance surveyor filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 10.01.2015.
3.	Motor claim form submitted by the G.Tippu Sulthan to the opposite party filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 18.12.2014.
4.	Letter addressed to G. Tippu Sulthan by the first Opposite Party filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 21.03.2015.
5.	Registered notice sent to the G. Tippu Sulthan by the first opposite party with postal receipt filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 03.03.2015.
6.	Registered letter sent to Sri G. Tippu Sulthan by the first opposite party with postal receipt with postal receipt filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 07.02.2015.
7.	Registered letter sent to Sri G. Tippusulthan by the first opposite party with postal receipt filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 17.12.2014.
8.	Registered letter sent to Sri G. Tippu Sulthan by the first opposite party with postal receipt filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Dt: 06.12.2014.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                                                   President

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                                   // BY ORDER //

 

                                                                                            Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                                                                      Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainants 1 and 2.

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 and 2.