BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 162/2006 against C.C. 300/2005, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager (Claims)
Simran Center, 2nd Floor
Parsi Panchayat, Andheri (East)
Mumbai-400 093. *** Appellant/
O.P.
And
M. Chandra Reddy
S/o. Krishna Reddy
R/o. Bhagyanagar
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. . *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Kishore Kumar Reddy
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. S. Venkateswarlu.
F.A. 779/2007 against C.C. 300/2005, Dist. Forum, Ongole.
Between:
M. Chandra Reddy
S/o. Krishna Reddy
R/o. Bhagyanagar
Ongole, Prakasham Dist. . *** Appellant /
Complainant.
And
M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager (Claims)
Simran Center, 2nd Floor
Parsi Panchayat, Andheri (East)
Mumbai-400 093. *** Respondent /
O.P.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S. Venkateswarlu.
Counsel for the Resp. Mr. K. Kishore Kumar Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
&
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) These are cross-appeals one preferred by the complainant F.A. 779/2007 against inadequacy of the amount granted, while the insurance company filed F.A. 162/2006 against the very order of granting the amount covered under the policy.
2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Indica car from one M. Sankara Reddy on 11. 2.2005, and got the same transferred in his name. The car was insured with the opposite party insurance company covering the period from 4.9.2004 to 3.9.2005. While so on 31.5.2005 it met with accident near Chinnaganjam resulting in extensive damage to the car. When the vehicle was sent to M. G. Brother Auto Mobiles, Ongole an authorized showroom of Indica it estimated the damages at Rs. 3, 22,711/-. When the said fact was informed to the insurance company, it appointed a surveyor who investigated the matter. Later he got it repaired by spending Rs. 1,70,459.44. When he claimed the amount the same was repudiated. Therefore he claimed the said amount together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment, and costs.
4) The insurance company resisted the case. It put the complainant to proof each and every fact alleged in the complaint. It alleged that the insurance policy was taken by one M. Sankara Reddy the owner of the vehicle. The complainant who said to have purchased the car never approached for transfer of policy in his name. When an investigator was appointed on receipt of complaint, he assessed the loss at Rs. 81,562/- subject to admissibility of the claim. Since the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant it had repudiated the claim as the complainant was not having insurable interest on the date of accident. Therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked. Refuting his evidence the insurance company filed Exs. B1 to B16.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that non-payment of amount amounts to deficiency in service, and the complainant was entitled to the amount following the decision reported in 2005 (3) ALD 643 and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 81,562/- with interest together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision the insurance preferred F.A. 162/2006 contending that the Dist. Forum did not consider the very fact that the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, and therefore he was not entitled to the amount covered under the policy. It ought to have followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in :
1) Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 1996 (1) SCC 221,
2) G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others
(1999 (3) SCC 754)
3) Madineni Kondaiah Vs. Yaseen Fatima (AIR 1986 A.P. 62)
and the Dist. Forum misinterpreted the decision reported in 2005 (3) ALD 643. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed, and consequently dismiss the complaint.
8) The complainant equally filed F.A. 779/2007 alleging that the Dist. Forum ought to have awarded the entire amount of Rs. 1, 69,967.04 having proved that he spent the amount for repairs.
9) Most of the facts are not in dispute. One Mr. M. Sankara Reddy is the owner of the car who took the policy Ex. A1 covering the period from 4.9.2004 to 3.9.2005. The complainant alleges that he purchased the said car on 11.2.2005, and the registration of the car was transferred in his name evidenced under Ex. A6. The fact remains that the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant. He did not seek transfer of policy in his name for reasons not known.
10) It is not in dispute that on 30.5.2005 the said car met with an accident for which a report was given to the police, who registered a case in Crime No. 29/2005 vide FIR Ex. A2. He took the car to an authorized repairer who estimated the repair charges at Rs. 3, 22,711/- . The complainant got it repaired by spending Rs. 1,70,459/-. When he made the claim the same was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the policy was not transferred in his name. Since there is no dispute as to the above facts, it has to be seen whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount for the damage sustained to the car?
11) It is 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 the decision Complete Insulations Private Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) the Supreme Court held that without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the purchaser he was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. It 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)
12) The National Commission had consistently opined that insurance company was not liable to pay the amount unless the policy was transferred in his name. It is altogether different in regard to third parties which we are not concerned here. In the light of above, the decision relied by the Dist. Forum reported in 2005 (3) ALD 643 could not be applied.
13) In the light of settled proposition of law repudiation had to be held just. The complainant cannot claim any amount from the insurance company when the policy was not transferred in his name. The Dist. Forum was wrong in observing that the complainant was entitled to the amount
14) In the result F.A. No. 162/2006 is allowed. As a corollary F.A. No. 779/2007 is dismissed. Consequently the complaint in C.D. 300/2005 is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear its own costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt. 16. 03. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
