BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

F.A.No.663/2008  against C.C.No.162/2007,   Dist. Forum, Karimnagar   .

Between:

 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Karimnagar Branch, Collectorate  Road,

Karimnagar Proper and District,

Represented by its Branch Manager.              … Appellant/

                                                                    Opp.party

And

Sardar  Nanak Singh, S/o.Jagan Singh,

Age 56 years, Occ: Business ,

R/o.H.No.2-3-99, Kaman Road,

Karimnagar Proper and Dist.                                   …Respondent/

                                                                     Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant     :  M/s.Manne Hari Babu

Counsel for the Respondent  :  M/s. V.Gowrisankar Rao.

CORAM:  THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

                                                      AND

SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

                  THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order :(Per  Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                                ****

            Aggrieved by the  order dt.5.2.2008  in C.C.No.162/2007 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the  opposite party preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint  are that the  complainant  is the owner of Indica Car  bearing no.DL 4-CU-0728  which he purchased from one Nithin Jain, New Delhi on 26.6.2006  and Delhi Transport Authority issued N.O.C  on 3.8.2006  and after enquiry  the R.T.O., Karimnagar transferred the vehicle  in the name of  the complainant  on  13.3.2007  and  issued R.C. to that effect.   On 28.11.2006 the complainant obtained an insurance policy  from the opp.party for his vehicle by paying Rs.9,657/-  with   full insurance  coverage  i.e. comprehensive policy  from  28.11.2006  to 27.11.2007  with policy bearing no.3439/2007.  On 4.5.2007  at 4.30 p.m.  while the complainant was coming  from Hyderabad,  when he reached Shanigram, one unidentified lorry dashed  against the  car  and the complainant received injuries  and the car was totally damaged  and the same was reported to the concerned  Koheda Police Station, Karimnagar Dist. The police conducted panchanama  and issued a report. The said incident was  informed to the opp.party  and a surveyor was  appointed by the opp.party who  visited the spot and conducted  an enquiry   and as per the instructions of the surveyor, the  vehicle was shifted to a  workshop by name Prasanna Motor Works, Kothirampur , Karimnagar  who issued an estimation for 1,50,000/- to repair the car  and the same was submitted to the opp.party and requested to permit him to take  up the repair works but  there was no response from the opp.party. The complainant issued notice on 21.5.2007  to  the opp.party  and their head office calling upon them to release the necessary funds to repair the car for which the opp.party issued a letter asking some particulars which were already mentioned in the notice issued by the complainant. On 23.5.2007  opp.party issued a letter stating that they are deputing  a surveyor Mr.Kishan from Warangal for assessing  the loss. The said surveyor visited the vehicle in the workshop and submitted his report  and on advise of the  opp.party the complainant  got the vehicle repaired and submitted his claim  along with all the  original bills amounting to  Rs.1,75,000/-with the  required documents.   Finally on 23.10.2007  the opposite party issued a letter repudiating the  claim of the complainant stating that  on the vehicle there was no insurable   interest at the time of  the accident.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party, the complainant approached Dist. Forum  to direct the opp.party to pay Rs.1,75,000/- towards the expenditure incurred  for repairing the car with interest at 12% p.a.  from the date of the accident,  to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and mental agony and to pay costs.

                Opposite party filed counter stating  that one Nithin Jain has obtained insurance policy  from opposite party insurance company  in respect of TATA Indica car bearing no.DL-4-CUO728 vide insurance policy no.3439/2007 and as per the R.T.A. Records dt.26.7.2007  the  ownership of the vehicle  was transferred from  the  said Nitin Jain to the complainant  on 13.3.2007  and after transfer of the said vehicle on his   name the complainant did  not file any application for transfer of insurance policy on his name and hence the  opposite party has no contractual liability with the complainant.   Opp.party further  submits that the complainant is not a consumer within the  meaning of Sec.2(d)  of the Consumer Protection Act, and the  opp.party did not enter any agreement  with the complainant  and hence there is no privity of contract between them and  there is no deficiency in service on their behalf  and  the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         The District Forum  based on the  evidence adduced   i.e. Exs.A1 to A26 and B1 and B2  allowed the complaint directing the opp.party to pay Rs.1,75,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition i.e. 16.11.2007  and costs of Rs.1000/-  within  one month from the date of receipt of the order.     

         The facts  not in dispute are that the complainant  herein has purchased the  subject car from  its owner Mr.Nitin Jain  on 26.6.2006 and obtained NOC on 3.8.2006  from RTO, Delhi.  An insurance policy was obtained on 28.11.2006  in the name of Nithin Jain from the opposite party.  The complainant on 13.3.2007  applied for transfer of ownership and registration  at RTA., Karimnagar. While so on 4.5.2007  the said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-  and made a claim with the insurance company which also appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted   his report.  It is an admitted fact that on 23.10.2007  the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant is not having insurable interest.  It is the contention  of the   insurance company that there is no concluded contract between the complainant and insurance company and there is no insurable interest and therefore their repudiation  is justified.  The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of the National Commission reported in  1(2009) CPJ 183(NC) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs. OMPRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. in which it is held that as per GR-10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee  on sale of vehicle,  benefits under policy, on date of transfer, automatically accrue to new owner, vehicle was already transferred in the name of the complainant  in the  RTO  record  and therefore the complainant was  entitled for the benefits  accruing in the policy.  In the instant case the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to state that he had made application to the insurance company for transfer of policy in his name. While it is  an admitted fact that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 11.5.2007 and the registration certificate was issued on 24.7.2007 and the accident occurred on 4.5.2006 by which time the policy was still in the name of Mr.Nithin Jain. 

        The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party relied on  Indian Motor Tariff Rules  GR.17.Transfers which reads as follows:

        “On transfer of ownership, the Liability  Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.

        The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery  to the insurer  who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous  owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in  his record  and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.”                

In the instant case the complainant has  not made any application for transfer  of policy  and therefore the question of the insurance company  not having transferred within 14 days of making an application does not arise.  In the absence of any application itself for  initiating  transfer we are of the considered view that there is no concluded contract between the complainant  and the insurance company since the policy is still in the name of Mr.Nitin Jain and not in the name of the complainant  and in the absence of  insurable interest, repudiation of the appellant/opposite party  is justified. 

        In the result this appeal is allowed . Order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently  the complaint is dismissed.

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        Dt.16.9.2010.

Pm*