BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Monday the 30^th day of January, 2012

C.C.No.81/2011

Between:

N.Md.Areef,S/o Late N.Jaffar,Muslim,

R/o H.No.23/91,Velgodu Village and Mandal,Kurnool District.                                                 

    …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

1. Managing Director,M/S HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

 6th Floor Leela Business Park,Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), MUMBAI - 400 059.

1. M/S HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Claim Manager,Venktesham Goud,

        2nd Floor, 6-3-346/1,Road No.1, Banhara Hills,Hyderabad-500 034.

1. The Branch Manager,M/S HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

                   .             

...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite parties 1 and 3 called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                     ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)

  C.C. No.81/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying a direction on opposite parties for the payment of :-

1. Rs.5,10,600/- towards vehicle damages:

1. 24% per annum interest from 27-05-2009;

1. Compensation of Rs.10,000/-;

      And

1. Rs.5,000/- as costs of the case.

2.    Briefly the complainant’s case is that he purchased a second hand vehicle bearing No.AP09 BA 7750 from Sri M.Krishna Reddy, got it registered on his name with RTA on 22-05-2009 w.e.f. 13-05-2009.  The vehicle was insured with opposite parties under the policy bearing No.VP00171953000103 covering risk for the period from 16-07-2008 to 15-07-2009.  The vehicle met with an accident on 27-05-2009 near Kothur, while going to Hyderabad and was badly damaged.  After receiving intimation from the complainant, a surveyor by name Sri V.Rajasekhar Reddy was appointed by opposite parties to assess the damages.  The surveyor submitted a report on 12-04-2010 assessing the loss at Rs.3,57,690/-.  The claim of the complainant, though submitted with all required documents was repudiated by opposite party on 27-08-2009 under Rule 17 of India Motor Tariff (IMT) stating that complainant did not apply for the transfer of policy in his name within 14 days of change of ownership.  The complainant incurred an amount of Rs.5,10,600/- towards repairs of the vehicle.  Opposite party was wrong in taking the date of transfer owner ship as 13-05-2009 instead of 22-05-2009.   The complainant being aggrieved has filed this petition before this Forum claiming appropriate reliefs.  

3.     Pursuent to the notice of this Forum, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 are called absent.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version resisting the complaint on the ground that there was no privity of contract between him and the complainant.  The accident occurred to the vehicle on 27-05-2009.  The ownership of the vehicle was changed in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 13-05-2009, where as the request for the transfer of policy was submitted to opposite party on 03-06-2009 along with claim form, claiming the damages to the vehicle.  According to GR17 of IMT on transfer of ownership, the transferee shall apply with in 14 days from the date of registration, for the change of name in the policy.  The complainant had not applied for the transfer of policy with in 14 days of transfer of registration in the prescribed from to the insurer for making necessary changes.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for the benefits of the policy.  The appointment of surveyor does not amount the admission of liability.  Sri V.Rajasekhar Reddy surveyor appointed by opposite parties assessed damages to Rs.3,57,690/-.  Even if for any reason the liability is fixed on him, it is limited to surveyor’s report.  In view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the complaint is not maintainable.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are filed by the and sworn affidavit of complainant and opposite party No.2 to support their cases. 

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 is proved?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs?

1. To What relief?

7.      Facts of the case:- The complainant purchased a second hand vehicle bearing No.AP09 BA 7750 from Sri M.Krishna Reddy.  The vehicle was insured with opposite parties under the policy bearing No.VP00171953000103 covering the risk for the period from                   16-07-2008 to 15-07-2009 as per Ex.A1.  In page 2 of Ex.A1, beneath the signature of Additional Registering Authority the date 22-05-2009 is noted.  Unfortunately the vehicle met with accident on 27-05-2009 at Kothur.  On 03-06-2009 the complainant applied for transfer of policy along with the claim for damages.  Sri V.Rajasekhar Reddy, surveyor appointed by opposite parties, submitted his survey report on 12-04-2010 assessing the loss to Rs.3,57,690/-.  Ex.A4 is surveyor report.  On the date of accident (27-05-2009) the vehicle registration was in the name of the complainant.  But the policy was in the name of previous owner, Sri M.Krishna Reddy.  The policy was transferred in the name of complainant on 16-06-2009 Ex.A2/Ex.B1 copy of the new policy issued on the name of complainant.  As per rule GR17 of IMT (Ex.B4) on transfer of ownership, the transferee shall apply with in 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed from to the insurer giving details of registration date of transfer etc for making necessary changes in the policy.   The liability of insurer is transferred in favour of a person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred w.e.f. the date of transfer.

8.     The contention of the complainant is that he applied to the insurer on 03-06-2009 for the transfer of policy in his name which falls within 14 days from 22-05-2009, the date found at he bottom of signature of Additional Registering Authority, so he is entitled for the benefits of the policy.  Opposite party is contended that the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 13-05-2009.  The complainant requested for the transfer of policy in his name on 03-06-2009 after the lapse of 14 days stipulated time.  Hence his claim is rejected.  Ex.B2/Ex.A5 repudiation letter from opposite party.  In page1 S.No.3 of Ex.A1 against the name of the complainant, the ownership is noted from 13^th May, 2009 and in page 2 under operation details, the transfer of ownership with effect from 13^th May, 2009.  In view of rival contentions of the parties, the question which would arise for consideration is what would be the date of transfer of ownership.  Rule GR17 of IMT reads as under “On transfer of ownership, the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle for transfer of policy in transferee name” (Ex.B4).  The rule requires the details of transferee and the date of registration.  The time stipulated in 14 days.  The circumstance of the case is that the complainant received RC on 22-05-2009 transferring ownership w.e.f. 13-05-2009.  Consider 13-05-2009 as date of transfer of ownership as per Ex.A1.  The stipulated 14 days time for the complainant to request the insurer for the change of policy expires on 26-05-2009.  If the complainant intended to comply the rule, he is in a position to do so, though he received RC on 22-05-2009.  The complainant failed to request the insurer with in 14 days from                    13-05-2009.  Opposite party rightly considered the date of transfer as 13-05-2009 for the calculation of 14 days stipulated time.  Relying on the decision reported as IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC) filed by opposite party No.1 the Forum holds that the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.  No deficiency of service is proved against opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled for relief. 

9.     In the result, the case against opposite parties is dismissed without cost.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30^th day of January, 2012.

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                 For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle bearing

No.AP09 BA 7750 dated 07-12-2005.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Endorsement of Transfer of interest issued

                by opposite parties date d 16-06-2009.

Ex.A3                Estimate furnished by Kun Automobile Private Limited,

                Hyderabad dated 31-03-2010.

Ex.A4                Motor Final Survey Report of Sri V.Rajasekhar Reddy

dated 12-04-2010.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter issued by opposite parties

                to complainant dated 27-08-2009.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Endorsement of Transfer of interest issued

                by opposite parties to complainant dated 16-06-2009.

Ex.B2                Photo copy of Repudiation Letter issued by opposite parties

                to complainant dated 27-08-2009.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Private Car Package Policy along with terms

                and conditions.

Ex.B4                Photo copy of India Motor Tariff General Regulations.

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :