THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NOS.  481/2017

The Branch Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

No. 1 & 2 1^st Floor, Magnur Commercial Complex,

B.D.Road, Chitradurga,

Now represented by

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regional Office, RGICL, No.28, East Wing

5^th Floor, Centenary Building,

M.G.Road, Reptd. by its Deputy Manager.

(By Shri/Smt. B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

1. J.Kariyamma W/o Late Srinivasa C.K. A/a 43 Yrs
2. K.S.Nisha D/o Late Srinivasa C.K. A/a 19 Yrs,
3. K.S.Anusha D/o Late Srinivasa C.K.

A/a 16 years, 3^rd Repondent is minor

Rep. by Respondent No.1

All are R/o Siddapura Village,

Chitradurga Taluk and District.

………Respondent/s

(By Sri/Smt. Chidananda, Adv.,)

: ORDER:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The Opposite Party in complaint No.78/2016 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Commission, Chitradurga wherein the District Commission directing him to pay own damage claim to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively and in the memorandum of appellant it is submitted that the Father of the complainant Nos. 2 & 3 and husband of complainant No.1 had obtained an vehicle insurance policy towards his car bearing No.KA-16-C-2090 vide policy bearing No.1406552338000084 which was valid from 27/01/2015 to 26.01.2016 and during the policy is in force, the vehicle met with an accident on 04.10.2015 at about 3.30 PM near Makanahalli Village and suffered severe damages.  The accident was informed to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party in turn appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.  The complainant claimed for own damage claim to the tune of Rs.5,62,853-79.  After the receipt of the claim, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim for the reason that the owner of the vehicle i.e., husband of the complainant No.1 and Father of complainant Nos.2 & 3 was died on 20.03.2015 way back before the date of accident and the policy was not transferred in the name of complainants and even the R.C. was not transferred in the name of complainants.  Hence, they have shown inability to settle the claim under the policy.  Against that repudiation, the complainants preferred the complaint alleging deficiency in service.   

2.      After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.4,00,000/-  along with @ 6% together with cost and compensation as stated above.

3.      Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party is in appeal.

4.       Heard the arguments.

5.       On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order, we noticed that the Father of complainant Nos. 2 & 3 and husband of complainant No.1 was the owner of Maruthi Swift Desire bearing No.KA:16-C-2090 which was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy bearing No.1406552338000084 which is valid from 27.01.2015 to 26.01.2016 and it is also an admitted fact that on 20.03.2015 the owner of the said vehicle was died.  After his death, the vehicle met with an accident on 04.10.2015 and as on the date of accident, the R.C. stands in the name of deceased husband of the complainant No.1 and even the policy is stood in the name of deceased husband of complainant No.1.  By virtue of the policy is in force, they have claimed for own damage claim which suffered a damages due to the accident on 04.10.2015.

6.       We observe here that on the date of accident and as on the date of the death of the husband of the complainant No.1, the complainants have not made any efforts to transfer the R.C. and policy into their name as stipulated in the law and terms and conditions of the policy.  The accident took place on 04.10.2015, whereas the owner of the vehicle died on 20.03.2015.  Even after 7 months, the complainants have not made any efforts to transfer the ownership of the vehicle into their name.  Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainants have no insurable interest in claiming own damage claim.  The District Commission without considering the terms and conditions and provisions of IMV Act for transfer of the R.C. has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards own damage claim.

7.       Anyhow, we observed that the surveyor has assessed the own damage claim to the tune of Rs.27,990/-.  Hence, considering the assessment made by the surveyor and the policy is in force, on exgratia the order has to be modified and the complainants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.27,990/- as per the assessment and opinion given by the surveyor.  Accordingly,

:ORDER:

The appeal is disposed-off.  No costs.

The impugned order passed by the District commission, Chitradurga is modified as under:-

The appellant/Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.27,990/- to the complainants by virtue of policy is in force along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

The Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings as per C.P. Act.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission for needful action.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss