Date of Filing:16.08.2007 Date of Order: 31.01.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1723 OF 2007 S. Shankar, E-4/3, DRDO Township, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560 093. Complainant V/S Mr. J.P. Shukla, Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 136, Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025. Opposite Party ORDER The complainant has filed this complaint stating that, he has purchased Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.KA-03 EN-9059 from Mr. K. Ravi on 15/1/2007. The Bajaj Alianz insurance policy was expiring on 18/1/2007. He renewed the policy obtaining RTO forms and got the signature of the seller Mr. K. Ravi. When he submitted the RTO forms for transfer, they asked him to obtain NOC from the financer. The seller already shifted to his new place of work. The name of the branch was not mentioned in the RC Book. Process of collecting details was on. Meanwhile he had parked the vehicle at K.G. Road, Janatha Bazar. The vehicle was not found at the place. He filed complaint to Upparpet Police Station for theft of vehicle 7/3/2008. He communicated theft of vehicle to the insurance company. He submitted claim form on 15/3/2007. He submitted non-traceable certificate from the jurisdictional police station. The complainant issued letter on 16/7/2007 from the insurance company regretting their inability to settle the claim as his name has not been registered as owner in the RTO. The decision of the opposite party in rejecting the claim is arbitrary. The complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay the claim of Rs. 23,100/- and the complainant has also asked for grant of costs and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. The opposite party put his appearance through advocate and defense version filed and both the parties have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard. 3. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim of Rs.23,100/-? REASONS 4. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the opposite party had issued a policy in favour of K. Ravi for Honda Active Scooter bearing No.KA-03 EN-9059 for a period of one year from 18/1/2007 to 17/1/2008. The opposite party also admitted that the complainant has submitted claim form. While processing the claim it was noticed that registration certificate stands in the name of K. Ravi and the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of complainant. Therefore, the opposite party informed that the claim of the complainant cannot be entertain. It is the case of the complainant that, he had purchased the vehicle from K. Ravi on 15/2/2007. He had obtained RTO forms and got the signature of the seller Ravi and also submitted the forms to the RTO. Since the RTO asked the complainant to obtain NOC from the financer to complete the formalities there was some delay meanwhile the vehicle was parked at the K.G Road, Janatha Bazar and the theft took place on 7/3/2007. He lodged complaint to Upparpet Police Station and the FIR No.94/2007 was registered by the Police U/Sec.379 of IPC on 7th March-2007 itself. The complainant has produced the copy of FIR and the copy of complaint gave to Police. The complainant communicated the theft of vehicle to the opposite party on 8/7/2007 and submitted the claim form on 15/3/2007. He also submitted the details called by the insurance company. He also submitted non-traceable certificate from the jurisdictional police station. Even after submission of the papers the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the name of the complainant has not been registered as owner in the RTO records. The complainant has produced the letter of K. Ravi dated 15/1/2007, in this letter K. Ravi stated that he had received cash of Rs.28,500/- in full settlement of the sale consideration of the Honda Activa Scooter and he has submitted original RC book, original insurance policy and keys to the complainant. The complainant had also obtained signature of the previous owner K. Ravi on Form No.29 and 30 for transfer of ownership of motor vehicle. The complainant has produced letter of the insurance company wherein it has been informed to me that the certificate of registration of the vehicle and policy was in the name of complainant. Therefore, the insurance company expressed its inability to entertain the claim. Admittedly, K. Ravi had not submitted the claim form. He had sold the vehicle to the complainant before theft of vehicle. K. Ravi had also executed and signed form No.29 and 30 to be submitted to the RTO and he has also handed over original R.C book, original insurance policy of the vehicle. He has received the sale consideration amount of Rs.29,500/- from the complainant. Thereby sale has been completed on 15/1/2007. Before the vehicle being got transferred in the name of the complainant by the RTO the theft of vehicle took place on 7/3/2007. The process of transfer of vehicle in the name of complainant was going on. The sale of the vehicle have been completed on 15/1/2007 itself and the policy was in force from 18/1/2007 to 17/1/2008 and the theft of vehicle took place during the subsistence of the policy, the policy holder having been sold the vehicle by receiving sale consideration amount. The benefit of policy taken by the owner automatically transferred to the complainant. No doubt as on the date of theft still the name of complainant was not entered in the RTO records. The complainant has explained the reasons and the process was going on, once the previous owner had executed Form No.29 and 30 for transfer of ownership. Before the actual transfer of name the theft of vehicle took place. The insurance company has not brought anything by way of evidence on record to prove that the sale of vehicle as averred by the complainant, did not took place. The registered owner K. Ravi having executed letter admitting the sale and receipt of consideration amount and also he had executed Form No.29 and 30 to be submitted before the RTO the sale transaction concluded and came to an end and the complainant became owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, when the policy taken on the vehicle was subsisting and the complainant has not claimed claim since the theft of vehicle took place. In that situation and facts and the circumstances of the case, it becomes duty and obligation of the insurance company to pay the insured amount to the complainant. The previous owner K. Ravi admittedly had not claimed objection before the opposite party and except the complainant nobody has submitted claim petition. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no defect on the part of the opposite party to accept the claim of the complainant and pay the insured amount. Consumer Forums are exercising equitable jurisdiction to render justice to the consumer. Consumer Protection Act is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumer. The judgments of consumer forum shall be based on the basis of principles of equity, social justice and good conscience. The larger interest of the justice will be looked into without resorting to technical interpretation of rule and law. The protection of the consumers is the need of the society. It is worthwhile to quote the address of Honble Mr. justice M.B. Shah, President, National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission reported in rights of consumer and protection released on 17th August-2007 at page-12 as under:- Equitable Justice:- It is to be stated that there is no awareness on the part of some judges including Members of the Consumer Fora that the jurisdiction which is to be exercised by the Consumer Fora in our country, is on the basis of principles of equity and good conscience and judgments should be de-hors technicians of law. On occasions, some courts by resorting to technical interpretation of law observe that consumer/consumer fora is worng, without realizing the fact that Consumer Fora are exercising equitable jurisdiction to render justice to a little man, namely, the consumer who is object of exploitation by the producers or service providers, for years together. It should be remembered that the entire Specific Relief Act which is codified equity gives discretion to the Courts to mould relief as per the circumstances of each case. Further, we have to remember the illuminating words of Roscoe Pound who said Though law should be stable it cannot stand still. We have to add and state that in a fast growing society, law should grow as a living organ of the society. We should keep in mind that it is our duty to do justice on the basis of equity and good conscience without bothering for red-tapism where a Section-Officer would take decision in interpreting the particular scheme. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, the repudiation of the claim on the part of the opposite party is not justified. Therefore, it can be safely held that, there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party shall be directed to allow the insurance claim and pay the IDV amount of Rs.23,100/- to the complainant. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.23,100/- to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to pay interest on the award amount at 8% p.a from the date of repudiation of the claim (i.e., 16/7/2007) till payment. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present litigation from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay the award amount within 30 days to the complainant. 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We occur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
