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*