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

HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.430 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.636 OF 2005  District  Forum-II, HYDERABAD

Between:

V.Krishna,

S/o.late Ramaiah,

Age 46 years, Occ:Service,

R/o.12-2-827/C, Kanthinagar Colony,

 Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.                                                             Appellant/

                                                                                                                       Complainant

           And

The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Company Limited,

3-4-817, Basheerbagh Cross Roads,

Hyderabad.                                                                                                    Respondent/

                                                                                                                        Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.R.K.G.Bhatia

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.E.Venugopal Reddy

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

      SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER          

                                                                        AND

                                          SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.         

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

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

                                                                        ***

            Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.636/2005 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Santro Car AP 10 AB 7388 which was insured with the opposite party from 28-10-2004 to 27-10-2005.  The complainant submitted that the said car met with an accident on 14-11-2004  and the complainant immediately informed the same to the opposite party but opposite party repudiated the claim on the basis that the policy was not transferred on the name of the complainant by the date of the accident and the policy was transferred only on 16-11-2004.  Hence the complainant approached the Forum seeking a direction to pay Rs.36,785.22 together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Opposite party did not choose to appear before the Forum and was set exparte.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A12 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum dismissed the C.D. though the appellant proved with documentary evidence, the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent herein. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2004(2) BLD (NOC) 78 dated 22-7-2003 in which it was clearly observed that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation from the date of original transfer from the original owner to another person, in case the vehicle  met with an accident.  He submitted that the vehicle was transferred on 11-10-2004 and the policy was transferred in the name of the appellant with effect from 16-11-2004 as per the provisions U/s. 157 of M.V.Act, 1986 and the insurance liability starts from the date of transfer of the vehicle.  He submitted that the insurance is based on indemnity at the time of filing the C.D. and the name of the original owner was not there and the Forum erroneously came to the conclusion that the original owner is eligible to receive compensation and not the appellant herein.  The appellant submitted that he is not a third party to the contract as he has already applied for transfer of policy in his name  at the time of transfer of policy and being policy holder, he is eligible to get loss indemnified by the insurance company.  He further submitted that the respondent was set exparte and prayed to allow the appeal.

We have perused the material on record.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a Santro Car AP 10 AB 7388 which met with an accident on 14-11-2004.  The complainant submitted in his written arguments that the vehicle was transferred on 11-10-2004 and the original policy, which is Ex.A1, which stood in the name of the original owner  was effective from 28-10-2004 till 27-10-2005.   It is the case of the opposite party that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the appellant only on 16-11-2004.  Ex.A4 clearly states that Policy No.051408/31/04/01122 which was earlier in the name of the original owner was transferred to the appellant/complainant from 16-11-2004 and the policy expiry date is 27-10-2005.  It is pertinent to note that the period of insurance of the original policy was from 28-10-2004 till 27-10-2005 and even after the policy was transferred to the appellant herein, the period of insurance remained up till the same expiry date i.e. 27-10-2005.  It is not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 14-11-2004 and the contention of the respondent/opposite party that the insurance policy was not yet transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of accident is unsustainable since the policy was in force from 28-10-2004 and the vehicle was transferred to the complainant on 11-10-2004.  Opposite party in their letter Ex.A11 dated 11-1-2005 had stated that they verified the R.C. book and found that the vehicle was transferred on 11-10-2004.  It is not the case of the opposite party that the policy was not in force at all and it is their case that the same policy was transferred to the appellant/complainant on 16-11-2004 whereas the accident took place on 14-11-2004.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the vehicle is transferred in respect of which insurance policy is taken, the certificate of insurance policy is also deemed to have been transferred on the same date. 

The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2004(2) BLD (NOC) 78 wherein it was held that:

Motor Vehicle Act-Section 157-Transfer of Vehicle-Liability of Insurer-

Transfer of Motor Vehicle from original owner to another person-Vehicle

met with an accident-Liability of Insurance Company-Section 157 of the Act

mandates that where vehicle is transferred in respect of which insurance

policy is  taken, certificate of insurance and policy shall be deemed to have

been transferred in favour of person in whose favour the vehicle is transferred-Hence Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation”

The complainant had filed the relevant bills raised by Talwar Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,  for an amount of 27,750/- (Ex.A8) and Ex.A7 dated 10-12-2004 which is a receipt.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,750/- towards repair charges of the vehicle.  Taking into consideration the aforementioned judgement and the material on record, we are of the opinion that once the vehicle is transferred, it is deemed that the policy is also transferred, therefore, for a mere technical formality that the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  Therefore, we direct the insurance company to pay the amount which the complainant has incurred towards repair charges of the vehicle i.e. Rs.27,750/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 11-1-2005  till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside by directing the respondent, insurance company, to pay to the complainant repair charges of the vehicle i.e. Rs.27,750/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 11-1-2005   till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

                                                            PRESIDENT.  LADY MEMBER. MALE MEMBER

JM                                                                       Dated 09 September, 2008