Date of filing: 24.04.2018

                                                           Date of Disposal:29.10.2022

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.722/2018

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sri.Babu Rao Innaa,

S/o Late Inna Rama Rao,

Aged about 54 years,

R/at No.40, 9^th ‘C’ Cross,

S.B.I.Colony, 1^st Phase,

Bangaluru-560 078.……COMPLAINANT-1

M/s Sri.Ganesh Industries,

Represented by its Partner,

Chelur Road,

Chikkaballapur District,

Karnataka-563 125.……COMPLAINANT-2

(Rep by Sri.C.R.Venkataram, Adv).

V/s

M/s Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,

E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area,

Sitapura, Jaipur,

Rajastan-302 022.……      OPPOSITE PARTY-1

M/s Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,

No.302, 3^rd Floor, S and S Corner Building,

Plot No.48, Hospital Road,

(Opposite Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital),

Shivaji Nagar,

Bengaluru-560 001.……      OPPOSITE PARTY-2

OP no.1 & 2 rep by Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Adv.,

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainants have filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to hold and declare that the opposite parties are guilty of the “deficiency in service” and to reimburse the complainants an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of cause of action towards wrongful loss sustained by them by way of loss of vehicle and compensation towards mental agony sustained and cost of the proceedings and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.   

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant no.2 had sold the delivery van bearing No.KA-40-A-1355 to the                               1^st complainant on 15.11.2016.  Further, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was covered under insurance policy issued by opposite party no.2 for the period from 20.08.2016 to 19.08.2017.  Further, 2^nd complainant had purchased the said policy.  Further, it is not in dispute that there was a theft of the said vehicle on 09.04.2017 and 1^st complainant had lodged the complaint before J.P.Nagar Police on 11.04.2017.  Further, it is not in dispute that the police had filed ‘C’ report that the vehicle has not been traced.  Further, it is not in dispute that the RC has been transferred in favour of the 1^st complainant on 22.11.2016. 

3. It is the further case of the complainants that the complainant no.1 is the partner of M/s RCN Tech, a firm engaged in the business of procuring and supplying food products of reputed companies like M/s Dabur and supplying the said products to the local and mofussil distributors/retailers within the State of Karnataka.  Further, the complainant and his wife are its partners and the firm was established in the Year 2015.  Further, on 09.04.2017 after completing the routine business requirements, the stolen vehicle was parked in front of the 1^st complainant’s office and on the next day he found missing of the same.  Further, as per the say of the executive of opposite party no.2 company, the complainant no.1 had submitted the required documents and vehicle ignition key in the office of opposite party no.2.  Further, the opposite parties did not reimburse the claim made by the complainant no.1.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed. 

4. It is the further case of the opposite parties that as per the policy terms and condition No.1 “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require”. Further, the complainants had informed to the police on 09.04.2017 and had informed the opposite parties belatedly.  Further, the complainant no.1 did not get transfer the insurance policy to his name till the date of theft.  Hence, the complainants have no insurable interest.  Thereby, the complainants are not entitled for reimbursement of compensation.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

5. To prove the case, the complainant No.1 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and had produced documents.  The Manager Legal of opposite parties-company has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.  

 6. Counsels for both the parties have filed written arguments.

         7. On the basis of the facts of the case, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

    ii) Whether the complainants are entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

  8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative   

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS
 

9.POINT NO.1:- The complainant No.1 and Manager Legal of opposite parties have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties in the written arguments filed that since the policy has not been transferred in favour of complainant no.1-the purchaser of the vehicle, the opposite party company is not liable for reimbursement.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that admittedly, the policy has not been transferred in favour of                1^st complainant at the time of theft, but in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’be Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No(s).5998/2019 (@SLP(C) No.23604/2014) in between M/s Balwant Singh and sons V/s National Insurance Company Limited and another, the complainant no.1 is entitled for reimbursement.  In the said judgement, it is stated that as per Section-50 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act-1988, where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under Chapter IV is transferred, certain formalities have to be fulfilled.  The formalities require the transferor to report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer has to be effected and to send a copy of the report to the transferee. 

10. Further Sub-Section-(3) of Section-50 provides the consequence of a failure to fulfill the obligation under sub-section-(1) to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section-177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under sub-section-(5). Further, Section-147 of IMV act specifies the requirements of such a policy and the limits of liability.  Section-157 of IMV Act contemplates with regard to Transfer of Certificate of Insurance. It provides that where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.   In the said case, the transfer of the vehicle was not in dispute and Hon’ble Apex Court had set aside the repudiation made by the insurance company and allowed the claim of the complainants. 

11. On contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have relied the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3774/2012, dt.29.05.2012 in between Mushtaq Mohd and another V/s National Insurance Company Limited.  In the said judgment, since the 1^st petitioner had no insurable interest at the time of incident and he had already sold the vehicle to petitioner No.2 Avtar Singh had dismissed the claim of the complainants.  Since the judgment relied by the counsel for the complainants were rendered on 31.07.2019, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court binds to this commission.  The facts of the case on hand and the facts of the case of the cited judgment are similar.  Therefore, the same is applicable to the facts of the case on hand.  In view of the judgment, we feel the opposite parties ought to have reimbursed the claim of the complainant no.1.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Accordingly, we answer this point in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.2:- The complainants claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  On perusal of the policy, it appears that the ID value of the vehicle was Rs.4,00,000/- during the relevant period.   Hence, we feel the complainant no.1 is entitled for the ID value of the vehicle.  Further, the interest claimed is highly an exorbitant and the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would suffice.  Hence, the complainant no.1 is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation.  On perusal of the documents produced by the complainants, it appears that the reply was given to complainant no.2 by opposite parties on 17.08.2017 stating that the complainant no.2 had already sold to opposite party no.1 on 15.11.2016 and stated that the policy has not been transferred to the name of transferee and the transferor has also no insurable interest for the insured vehicle at the material time of loss.  Hence, the claim was repudiated.  Hence, we feel from 17.08.2017 the complainant no.1 is entitled for interest in the above said rate till realization.  Further, the complainant no.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.    Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative. 

13.POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- ID Value of the vehicle to the                            1^st complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 17.08.2017, till realization.

Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. 

The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th day of October, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Babu Rao Inna, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1.Copy of the partnership deed of the 1^st complainant’s firm.

2.Complaint, FIR, “C” report and letter of rejection of claim by the opposite parties dt.19.08.2017.

3. Judgments favouring the complainant.

4. Special Power of Attorney.

5. Citations.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Shivananda R, Manager Legal in the opposite parties company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Citations.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•