BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL Present : Sri N.J. Mohan Rao, I/c President. And Smt. V.J. Praveena, Member. Monday, the 31st day of March, , 2008. CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 54/2006 Between: Sirimalla Sadanandam, S/o Pochalu, Age: 35 years, Occ: Press Reporter, R/o H.No.3-6-266, Indranagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Complainant AND M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Branch Manger, H.No.15-2-19, S.V.P. Road, Rangampet, Hanamkonda. … Opposite Party Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. K. Rajeshwar, AdvocateCounsel for the Opposite Party : Sri A. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate. This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order ORDER Per Smt. V.J. Praveena, Member This is a complaint filed by the complainant S. Sadanandam against the Opposite Party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to it to pay Rs.42,000/- towards theft of the vehicle and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows; 1) The complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-36-H-6936 with Engine No.02B18E43467, Chassis No.02B20F44209 and the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party vide Policy No.050601/31/04/01755 for the period from 1-10-2004 to 30-9-2005. On 6-12-2004 at about 11.00 a.m the complainant went to Vaddiraju Plaza situated near Police Head Quarters, Hanamkonda and after completion of his work, the complainant returned back and he could not found his vehicle where it was parked. The complainant searched for his vehicle and also enquired some persons about his vehicle. But there was no response. The complainant after searching for one hour developed a doubt that vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons. The complainant gave a complaint to Hanamkonda Police Station and registered a case under Cr.No.499/506/04. The complainant also gave information to Opposite Party about the theft of his vehicle. The complainant submitted the claim form to the Opposite Party claiming the amount of the vehicle. The Opposite Party received the claim form and failed to pay the claim amount and issued a letter dated 22-12-2004 to the complainant with false and baseless allegations. As such the complainant filed the present complaint for his redressal. Opposite Party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows: 2) The complainant is not entitled for an amount of Rs.42,000/- towards loss/theft of the vehicle and Rs.30,000/- towards damages. The Opposite Party issued policy for the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 6936 to J. Prakasham and the said policy was valid from 01-10-2004 to 30-09-2005. A claim was lodged by the complainant that he is the owner of the above said vehicle and it was committed theft and the policy of insurance was not taken by the complainant. As per R.C. the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant from 3-04-2002 but obtained policy by J. Prakasham on 30-9-2005. As there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Opposite Party, the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed. 3) The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of Opposite Party one G. Narayana Murthy filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also got marked Ex.B-1. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party? 2) To what relief? 4) The case of the complainant is that he insured his motor cycle bearing No.AP-36-H-6936 with engine No.2818 and 43467, Chasis NO.02B20F44209 vide policy No.050601/31/04/01755 valid for a period from 1-10-2004 to 30-9-2005. It is not disputed by the Opposite party. The vehicle on 6-12-2004 at about 11.00 a.m. when parked near Vaddiraja Plaza to attend to his work and when returned after half an hour he noticed that the vehicle was missing. He immediately lodged a complaint before police and registered a case under Cr.No.499/506/04. He informed the Opposite party about the theft of his vehicle and submitted the claim form with relevant papers, but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy was taken in favour of Sri J. Prakasham on 30-09-2004 for a period from 1-10-2004 to 30-9-2005. As per R.C. the owner of the said vehicle is Sri S. Sadanandam from 3-4-2002. As the policy was not transferred in favour of S. Sadanandam at the time of alleged theft he is not entitled for the insurable interest. For the above grievance the complainant has approached this Forum for redressal. 5) By producing Exs.A-1 to A-8 the complainant has proved that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle i.e., the motor vehicle bearing No. No.AP-36-H-6936 with engine No.2818 and 43467, Chasis NO.02B20F44209 vide policy No.050601/31/04/01755 and the said vehicle has underwent theft as the vehicle cover the insurance amount, he is claiming the same from the Opposite party company. 6) The Opposite Party’s main contention is that the said complainant is the registered owner of the said vehicle but the insurance policy has not been transferred on his name. It exists on the previous owner of the vehicle i.e, one J. Prakasham. 7) The complainant has filed a citation IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) Shri Narayan Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. We rely on the National Commission Judgement where it reveals that in the year 1994 a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The insurance benefits of the said vehicle automatically transfers in favour of the transferee i.e., the new owner. Transfers: On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner”. 8) Relying on the National Commission Judgement, we the Forum concluded that the complainant is entitled for the insurance amount of the vehicle as he is the present owner of the said vehicle which is issued by the Opposite party. 9) In the result the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part and the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.29,600/- (Rs.Twenty Nine thousand six hundred only) towards insured amount along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 7-2-2005 till the date of deposit. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand only) towards costs. A month’s time is granted to the Opposite party for the compliance of the order. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, today, the 31st March, 2008.) Sd/- Sd/- Member President District Consumer Forum , Waragal APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit on behalf of Opposite party filed. EXHIBITS MARKEDOn behalf of complainant - Ex.A-1 Xerox copy of Driving Licence.
- Ex.A-2 Xerox copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle.
- Ex.A-3 First Information report.
- Ex.A-4 Xerox copy of letter by complainant to O.P, dt.14-12-04.
- Ex.A-5 Letter of O.P. to complainant dt.22-12-04.
- Ex.A-6 Xerox copy of pakage policy of Opposite party.
- Ex.A-7 Xerox copy of scheduled of premium of Opposite party.
- Ex.A-8 Xerox copy of receipt issued by Opposite party.
On behalf of Opposite party. Ex.B-1 Proposal form for Motor Insurance for motorized Two-wheeler of private cares. Sd/- President. | 
