Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/82/2017

T.N. Rudresha S/o H.M. Nagaraj, - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.K. Chandan - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. Puttappa

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:10.08.2017

DISPOSED      ON:05.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 82/2017

 

DATED:  5^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	H.N. Rudresh, S/o H.M. Nagaraj, Age: 28 Years, Owner of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-27 M 2802, R/o II Cross, Dwarka Badavane, Jogimatti Road, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri. B.K.Puttappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. H.K. Chandan, S/o H. Kotresh, Major, Policy Holder of Car bearing No.KA-27 M-2802, Behind Unity Health Complex, C.K. Pura, Kelagote, Chitradurga.   2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Branch Office, Jagalur Mahalingappa Complex, P.B. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP No.2)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH    : PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,46,546/- towards damages, Rs.55,450/- towards labour charges and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of car bearing Reg.No.KA-27 M-2802 which was purchased from OP No.1.  It is further submitted that, on the date of purchase, the complainant has received the possession from OP No.1.  After purchase of the RC has been changed in the name of complainant which is effected from 20.01.2015.  But, the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant and still it stands in the name of OP No.1, the policy was in force.  On 09.02.2015, the said vehicle was met with an accident near NH-4 at Kathtral, Chitradurga Taluk within the jurisdiction of Bharamasagara Police.  The Bharamasagara Police have registered a case against the lorry driver in Crime No.48/2015 punishable u/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC.  The vehicle was fully damaged due to the said accident.  The complainant informed about the accident to OP No.2.  OP No.2 inspected the spot and verified the same.  On 24.02.2015, the complainant has send necessary documents along with bills to the OP No.2 for settlement.  But, OP No.2 has repudiated the claim stating that, the policy was not transferred in the name of RC owner.  The policy still stands in the name of OP No.1.  Under law, the policy will be transferred to the RC owner within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC.  The complainant has send all the necessary documents along with amended motor vehicles Act to the OP No.2 and stated that, it is deemed to be transferred, the question of submitting the report to the insurance company within 14 does not arise.  Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

3.     After service of notice to the OPs, OP No.1 appeared through Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate and OP No.2 appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed their respective versions. 

OP No.1 in his version has stated that, the allegations made in para 2 to 3 are not within his knowledge.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle from him and the RC also changed in his name.  But the policy was stands in his name.  It is true that, the vehicle was met with an accident near Kathral within the limits of Bharmasagar Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.48/2015 and the remaining contentions stated by the complainant in his complaint are not within his knowledge.  OP No.1 has no objection to obtain compensation from OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against him.  

4.     OP No.2 filed version stating that, OP No.1 has sold the vehicle to the complainant, the RC was also change in his name but, till today the policy stands in the name of complainant.  The ID value of the vehicle is at Rs.2,50,000/-.  It is true that, the vehicle met with an accident near Kathral within the jurisdiction of Bharamasagara Police on 09.02.2015 and the complainant has intimated the same to the OP No.2.  The OP No.1 on 20.02.2015 appointed a surveyor, the surveyor given report to the OP No.1.  Again the complainant has given a claim form on 27.04.2015 along with estimation.  Again OP No.2 appointed one D.V. Sanjay for conducting final survey.  The said D.V.Sanjay has conducted his final survey and submitted his report on 05.07.2015 stating that, the loss of vehicle is only Rs.50,200-80 and DL stands in the name of one Pradeep Kumar, police records but the policy stands in the name of OP No.1.  As per section 157 of the M.V. Act, the transferee shall approach for change of policy within 14 days from the date of change of RC.  In this case, the RC was in the name of complainant but the policy was continued in the name of previous owner i.e., OP No.1.  Hence, OP No.2 repudiated the claim made by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-8.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri. H.K. Chandan has examined as DW-1 and they have not produced any documents to prove his case.  On behalf of OP No.2, Malathesh C. Haller, Assistant Manager has examined as DW-2 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-10 documents have been got marked.

6.     Arguments heard. 

7.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, he is entitled for the relief against OP No.2 as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        8.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

9.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-27 M-2802, which was purchased from OP No.1 and the RC was transferred in the name of complainant.  But, the policy stands in the name of OP No.1.  After purchasing the vehicle, met with an accident on 09.02.2015 near Kathral within the limits of Bharamasagara Police jurisdiction and fully damaged.  The estimation cost was Rs.1,46,000/-.  The complainant has intimated the same to the OP No.2.  In turn, OP No.2 appointed a surveyor.  As per the survey report, the damage value was Rs.50,200-00 but the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.1,46,000/- as per bill produced by the complainant.  As per exhibits, the Ex.A-1 to A-8 it clearly shows that, the complainant has repaired the same from Car auto Care, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga and produced the labour bill and spare parts bills obtained from Vinay Automobiles.  As per bill, the repair cost is of Rs.1,46,546/-.  But, the main contention of the OP No.2 is the RC is stands in the name of complainant and the policy stands in the name of OP No.1.  As per Sec.157 of the M.V Act, if the RC was changed in the name of the complainant, the policy will be changed within 14 days from the date of change of RC.  But in this case, the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant till today.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.

10.   The complainant has produced the amended motors vehicles Act, 2007, the Sec.157 clearly shows that, when the RC was transferred to any person, the policy deemed to be transferred to the purchaser. Now in this case, the complainant also intimated the same to the OP No.2 within 30 days.  But the Act itself very clearly says that, it is deemed to be transferred.  The complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 to 8 documents those documents are the policy.  As per the policy, the same was in force at the time of accident.         OP No.2 has taken main contention in this case that, the policy was not transferred within 14 days and OP No.2 has stated that, the complainant is violating the terms and conditions of the policy. 

11.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OPs.  The complainant has relied upon Ex.A-1 to A-8 documents.  Those documents clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 and the same has been met with an accident within the Bharamasagara Police jurisdiction.  OP No.2 has relied upon Ex.B-1 to B-10 documents.  Those documents are the policy, FIR, Statement and final survey report.  But according to the OP No.2, the complainant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the policy.  If the person is not followed the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is entitled for compensation as per nonstandard basis.  The ID value of the vehicle is of Rs.2,50,000/-.  On the calculatin of nonstandard basis, the complainant is entitled Rs.1,75,000/-.  But, the complainant has claimed only Rs.1,46,546/-, less the depreciation, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/-.      Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards spare parts and repair charges along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization to the complaint.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-  and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 05/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. H.K. Chandan by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-2:- Sri. Malathesh C. Haller, Assistant Manage by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	True copy of FIR
02	Ex.A-2:-	True copy of spot panchanama
03	Ex.A-3:-	Motor vehicles accident report
04	Ex.A-4:-	True copy of charge sheet
05	Ex.A-5:-	True copy of B-register extract
06	Ex.A-6:-	Letter dated 07.09.2017 written by complainant to OP No.2
07	Ex.A-7:-	Postal receipt
08	Ex.A-8:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	True copy of policy
02	Ex.B-2:-	True copy of FIR
03	Ex.B-3:-	True copy of statement
04	Ex.B-4:-	True copy of charge sheet
05	Ex.B-5:-	True copy of motor surveyor report
06	Ex.B-6:-	True copy of motor (final) survey report
07	Ex.B-7:-	True copy of loss assessment
08	Ex.B-8:-	True copy of motor claim form
09	Ex.B-9:-	Letter dated 17.07.2015 to complainant
10	Ex.B-10:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**