BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                                   Dated this the 31^st of January 2011

PRESENT

                                            SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                                                                 SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                                                                  SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.207/2010

(Admitted on 31.07.2010)

Mr.V.U.S. Narayana,

So. V.Shivarama Upadyaya,

Aged about 62 years,

RA. Samethadka House,

Puttur Taluk,

Dakshina Kannada.                           …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D).

          VERSUS

Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Co.

Bharath Building,

P.M. Road,

Mangalore,

Dakshina Kannada.                             ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.A.L. Shenai).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant’s son Arun Kumar has purchased a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19-L-7835 on 30.10.2009 from Mr.Sunil Kumar of Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.  After the purchase, the vehicle has been registered in the name of Arun Kumar by RTO Puttur.  It is stated that, the above said vehicle insured with the Opposite Party as per policy No.602308/31/ 09/6200001697 and the same was valid from 11.06.2009 to 10.06.2010.  The above said policy covered personal accident to the Owner cum Driver. 

It is stated that, on 18.12.2009, the above said Arun Kumar met with a road accident due to skidding of the motor bike.  In the above said accident, Mr.Arun Kumar died.  Police have registered FIR.  It is stated that, the above said vehicle also suffered heavy damage and the same has been informed to the Opposite Party and also submitted claim form.  Thereafter sent the claim to the Opposite Party by registered lawyer’s notice.  But the Opposite Party not paid the claim, which amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as personal accident benefit to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 18.12.2009 till payment, Rs.6,770/- as repair charges and Rs.75,000/- claimed as  compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version, stated that, the Opposite Party had issued a policy to the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19-L-7835 in favour one Sunil Kumar, S/o. K.Narayana Kunder.  The policy was valid from 11.06.2009 to 10.06.2010 covering a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to its owner cum driver namely Mr.Sunil Kumar.  It is stated that, the Opposite Party received undated notice on 05.05.2010 through advocate informing that one Mr.Arum Kumar had purchased the above vehicle on 30.10.2009 and died on 18.12.2009 in a road accident and called upon to pay the claim.  The Opposite Party stated that, the insurance cover particularly the personal accident coverage only to Sunil Kumar and not any subsequent purchaser.  Hence, the Arun Kumar is not entitled any claim under the policy and stated that there is no deficiency.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.V.U.S.Narayana (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.   Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.   One Sri.M.Subramanya Kini (RW1), Assistant Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 to R3 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure.   Both parties produced notes of arguments.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:                          

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

The facts which are not in dispute is that, the vehicle No.KA- 19-L-7835 was insured with the Opposite Party in the name of one Mr.Sunil Kumar K, S/o. K. Narayana Kunder of Bantwal Taluk bearing policy No.602308/31/09/6200001697 and the same was valid from 11.06.2009 to 10.06.2010.  The above said insurance policy covers the personal risk of owner cum driver for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. 

The grievance of the Complainant is that, his son Mr.Arun Kumar purchased the above said vehicle on 30.10.2009 from the above said Sunil Kumar.  The vehicle has been registered in the name of Arun Kumar and produced the R.C. book before the FORA and stated that, the above said Arun Kumar died in motor accident on 18.12.2009 while he was riding, the FIR was registered.  The Complainant submitted the claim form to the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party not honoured the claim of the Complainant, hence this complaint.

The Opposite Party stated that, the vehicle was insured in the name of Sunil Kumar and not in the name of Arun Kumar who is present purchaser, hence the risk of Sunil Kumar was insured and not the Arun Kumar and stated that they are not liable to pay any amount.

The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C7.  Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R3.

On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, we find that, admittedly the vehicle No.KA-19-L-7835 insured in the name of Mr.Sunil Kumar K, S/o. K.Narayana Kunder of Bantwal Taluk and not in the name of Arun Kumar who has purchased the above said vehicle on 30.10.2009 (as per Ex C2).  No doubt, at the time of accident i.e., on 18.12.2009 Mr.Arun Kumar was the registered owner of the above said vehicle but the insurance is still stands in the name of Mr.Sunil Kumar K who is the previous registered owner.  The above policy is covered for personal accident, that means, the person who insured with the Opposite Party not the subsequent purchaser.  The non-transfer of the insurance policy in the name of present registered owner/Mr.Arun Kumar is fatal to the case of the Complainant.  The personal accident cover under Motor policy covers the risk of the owner-driver who dies in an accident and the cover is provided to the owner-driver while driving the vehicle.  But in the present case, the vehicle in question was being driven not by the owner in whose name the insurance was done.  The personal accident policy would cover only Sunil Kumar K.  It is not disputed that, at the relevant time of accident the Arun Kumar, i.e., the Complainant’s son was driving the vehicle alone.  The Personal Accident Insurance Policy would not cover the risk of subsequent purchaser until and unless the policy transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser.  There is no contractual relation between the subsequent purchaser and the Opposite Party.  Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, under the policy of this nature, the Complainant is not entitled for any claim under the Personal Accident Policy because the policy still stands in the name of previous owner not in the name of the subsequent purchaser i.e., Arun Kumar.  Hence, there is no deficiency proved as against the Opposite Party, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.  

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of January 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.V.U.S.Narayana – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 11.06.2009: Copy of the policy.

Ex C2 – 30.10.2009: Copy of the R.C.

Ex C3 – 18.12.2009: Copy of the FIR.

Ex C4 – 24.12.2009: Copy of the death certificate.

Ex C5 – 16.02.2010: Copies of the repair bills (2 in numbers).

Ex C6 – 24.04.2010: Copy of the registered Lawyer’s notice.

Ex C7 – 20.05.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1 – Sri.M.Subramanya Kini, Assistant Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:   

Ex R1 – 13.05.2010: Attested copy of the Insurance policy bearing policy No.602308/31/09/6200001697.

Ex R2 – 24.04.2010: Original notice from Jayaprakash N. Advocate.

Ex R3 – 20.05.2010: Reply to the above notice.

Dated:31.01.2011                            PRESIDENT