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

F.A. 1474/2008   against C.C.  746/2007,  Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad     

Between:

The Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Shiram Site Office, Chennai.                      ***                           Appellant/

          .                                                                                       O.P. No. 1

                                                                   And

1)  K. Malla Konda Reddy

s/o. Kunda Reddy

Age: 30 years, R/o. L.I.G. 401

Bharatnagar, Kukatpally

Hyderabad-18.                                            ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant

2)  The Manager

Sri Ram Investment Ltd.

MIG-14, Above Sony Show Room

Hydernagar, Kukatpally

Hyderabad.                                                           ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                O.P. No. 2.  

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s.  Kota Subba Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s. C. Janardhan.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

                                   SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it  pay Rs. 26,254/-  together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that   he purchased Ashok Leyland truck   on 27. 12.2003 from one Pattabhi Reddy who was the owner and hypothecated to opposite party No. 2 Sri Ram Investments Ltd.    Op2 in fact after purchase has to change his name both in R.C. book as well as insurance policy.    However it has effected change only in the  R.C. book.  The insurance policy was issued  for Rs. 3 lakhs covering the period from  15.12.2004 to 14.12.2005.    Despite his repeated requests  his name was not changed.    While so the vehicle met with accident on  24.8.2005  at  Jallapur in Mahaboobnagar district.    When the fact was  intimated, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.  26,255/-.  However, the said amount was not paid despite his legal notice.  The appellant has given a reply, however claim was not settled.    Therefore he claimed  a sum of Rs. 26,255/- together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-  and costs of  Rs. 5,000/-. 

3)                Opposite Party No. 1 insurance company resisted the case.    It admitted  issuance of policy  for the vehicle in favour of  one  Pattabhi Reddy owner of the vehicle.  No information was received from the complainant about the purchase nor  request was made for transfer of policy in his favour.    On receipt of intimation about the accident  it had appointed a surveyor  who in turn  opined that  the driver K. Anantha Rao  was not having valid driving license  to drive the insured vehicle which was carrying  hazardous goods (LPG cylinders) contrary to  Rule IX of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.   Rule 132  and sub-rule 5 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 mandates that  the driver should undergo three days  of training and  the licensing authority  on receipt of application  referred to in sub-rule 2 shall make  an endorsement  in the driving license  of the applicant  to the effect that he is authorized to  drive the goods  carriage, carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous  nature of human life. His  driving license shows that he was eligible to drive  LMV, MCWG, transport vehicle HTV, LMV.   There is no endorsement or eligibility  for him to drive  the hazardous goods vehicle.   Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                 Opposite Party No. 2 having served with notice did not choose to contest the matter  and therefore it was set-exparte.

5)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked, while the appellant insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its  Asst. Manager and got Exs. B1 to B6 marked.

6)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the transfer of ownership was affected   in the policy on 30.8.2005  six days after the date of accident, and mere delay of six days  could not be a ground to repudiate  as no other ground  had been mentioned in the repudiation letter Ex. B2.    Apart from it the surveyor  opined that the driving license was in order  and therefore  directed the insurance company to pay Rs.  26,254/-  together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 

7)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist.  Forum did not appreciate the facts or law  in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that on the date when the accident took place the name of the complainant was not transferred.  The policy was not in the name of the complainant who said to have  purchased the vehicle  nor the driver who was driving the vehicle  carrying the hazardous goods  was having requisite  license as contemplated under  the M.V. Act and  the rules there under, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 

8)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9)                It is an undisputed fact that  Ashok Leyland truck purchased on  27. 12.2003  was  insured by the appellant insurance company for Rs. 3 lakhs covering the period from  15.12.2004 to 14.12.2005 evidenced under Ex. B3.  The policy stood in the name of one   Pattabhi Reddy.  The name of the complainant is  K. Mala Konda Reddy.  According to him he purchased the said vehicle  from  Pattabhi Reddy  on 27.12.2003.    Since the vehicle was under hypothecation  with Op2  his name was transferred in R.C. book evidenced under Ex. A1.    However, Op2  had failed to effect the change  of his name in the policy.    It may be stated herein that  no evidence whatsoever was placed  in order to state that  Op2 had got the insurance policy  transferred in the name of the complainant.    The vehicle  met with accident on  24.8.2005  while it was carrying  hazardous goods viz., LPG cylinders.    At any rate on the date of accident the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant.    No efforts were made by the complainant in order to see that the policy was transferred in his name.    The insurance company  no doubt  on intimation  of the accident appointed a surveyor  who after verification of the policy found that the insurance policy was not in the name of the complainant.    Considering the report of the surveyor the insurance company repudiated the claim  under Ex. B2 dt.  22.9.2006   on the ground  that  transfer of ownership endorsement  was not effected in order to settle the claim made by the complainant and he  has no insurable interest. The Dist. Forum having accepted the contention  that the policy was not transferred  in the name of the complainant, however found  that mere  six days delay in getting the insurance policy transferred  would not  be  a justifiable ground in rejecting the claim, granted the amount.  

10)              It is a settled proposition of law that the transfer of policy is not automatic on purchase of a vehicle,  and the policy has to be transferred by the insurance company to the subsequent purchaser,  then only he would be entitled to the amount covered under the policy.  As long back as in Complete Insulations Private Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this question and held  that  without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the  purchaser  he was  not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer.  The Supreme Court has held that Section 157 applies to third party risk,  and not own damage claim and unless the insurance policy transferred in his favour,  he has no locus standi to file the complaint.  This was followed  by National Commission in Om Prakash Sharma Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd  reported in   IV (2008) CPJ 65 (NC)  .

11)              Recently the National Commission in   Madan Singh Vs.  United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)  held that

          Section 157(2) provides that  transferee  shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer  in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of  transfer  in the certificate of insurance and the  policy described in the certificate in his favour and insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy  of insurance in regard to  transfer  of insurance.. There being no agreement of  transfer  of the insurance policy between the insurer and the transferee , the claim filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

12)              In view of the above decisions, the complainant would not be entitled to claim the amount.    Though the other contention was that the vehicle was driven by a driver who was not authorized to drive the vehicle,  the surveyor who was appointed  by the  insurance company  did not say so or their repudiation mentions  the said fact.    Therefore  we do not intend to consider the  said aspect as we do not have requisite evidence  and other relevant record. 

13)              In the result the appeal is allowed  setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently the complaint is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  15.  11.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”