Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for settlement of the Insurance claim of Rs.2,50,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-2558 having purchased from Sri.Muniveeraiah and the R.C. of the lorry was also transferred to the name of the complainant on 26.11.2007. The said lorry had insurance from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008 issued by the Opposite party in the name of Sri.Muniveeraiah. The said lorry met with an accident on 22.01.2008 and lorry was completely damaged. The complainant informed the accident and damages to the Opposite parties. The complainant got repaired the lorry through Prerana Motors, Mysore at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/-. Then, the complainant filed a claim form to the Opposite parties for settlement of the claim. But the Opposite party has repudiated the claim, stating that there is no insurable interest. The repudiation of the claim is illegal and the Opposite party is liable to pay the cost of the repair. The Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. 3. The Opposite parties have filed version calling upon the complainant to prove that he has purchased the lorry bearing No.KA.05-D-2558 and the R.C. was transferred to his name. They do not admit the validity of insurance as on the date of accident and also the accident to lorry and information to the Opposite party and the complainant got repaired the lorry damages through Prerana Motors at the cost of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, the claim has been repudiated as the policy was not standing in the name of the complainant as on the date of accident. As per the terms of the policy, the owner of the vehicle has to inform to the Opposite party regarding transfer of vehicle and to get endorsement in his favour in the policy. There is no contract between the complainant and the Opposite parties. As such the claim has been repudiated. The Opposite parties are not liable to pay any claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Both the parties have filed the affidavit and documents. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite party is just and proper? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and liable to pay the insurance claim and damages? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- Ex.C.2 Registration Certificate reveals that the ownership of lorry bearing No.KA.05-D-2558 is transferred to the name of the complainant with effect from 26.11.2007 from the name of Sri.Muniveeraiah. Ex.C.1 proves that the said lorry met with an accident on 22.01.2008. Ex.R.1 is the certificate of insurance issued by the Opposite party in favour of Sri.Muniveeraiah in respect of the lorry K.A.05-D-2558 valid from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008. The complainant preferred claim as per Ex.C.3 to the Opposite party and earlier the report of accident to Opposite party by letter dated 21.01.2008. The complainant has submitted the bill Ex.C.5 to C.9 claiming Rs.2,50,000/-. Ex.R.2 is the estimation for Rs.1,45,850/- and labour charges of Rs.39,050/- and supplementary estimation of Rs.55,450/-. The Opposite party deputed a Surveyor to inspect the lorry damages and surveyor submitted the report Ex.R.3 and though the estimate is Rs.2,70,650/-, the Surveyor assessed damages at Rs.1,20,214/-. Ex.R.5 is the bill issued by the Prerana Motors and submitted by the complainant to the Opposite party. Admittedly, the Opposite party has repudiated the claim as per Ex.C.4 stating that the policy is issued in the name of Muniveeraiah and as on the date of accident (22.01.2008) the policy is still in the name of Sri.Muniveeraiah. But the R.C. book is transferred to the name of H.D.Manjunath on 26.11.2007, but the policy is not transferred to his name and there is no insurable interest as the date of accident and as there is no liability to the insurance company. 9. So, only the legal question to be decided is whether there was insurable interest on the part of the complainant as on the date of accident. The documents clearly prove that the complainant purchased the motor vehicle in question from Muniveeraiah the previous owner and the R.C. was transferred to his name on 26.11.2007 as per Ex.C.2. Admittedly, the Sri.Muniveeraiah the previous owner has obtained insurance policy for the said lorry as per Ex.R.1 which was in force from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008. The complainant himself has admitted in the complaint and the evidence that he had not applied to the Opposite party for transfer of insurance policy to his name from the name of previous owner. On that basis, the Opposite party has contented that the complainant had no insurable interest. Though the complainant preferred the claim about the damages caused to the lorry in the accident, but the contention of the complainant advocate is that there need not be any application for transfer of policy to the name of purchaser and it is a automatic as per Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act and he has relied upon the decisions reported in (1) ILR 2008 Karnataka page 4832 in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs- Vijay Kumar, (2) 2005 (2) KCCR 936 in the case of Sri.Veeresh Vs- Sri Siraj Ahmed and (3) ILR 1996 Karnataka 2955 in the case of Honble National Insurance Vs- Smt.Lakshmi. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite party has relied upon the decision reported in 1996 ACJ page 65 SC in the case of M/s Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd., -Vs- New India Assurance Co., Ltd. 10. We have perused the citations relied upon by both the sides. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are only in respect of 3rd party claim and it is held that Section 157 of IMV Act is applicable and there is deemed transfer of insurance policy though the transferee has not applied for transfer of policy to his name. In those decisions, it is not observed that Section 157 i.e., automatic transfer of the policy follows soon after transfer of ownership. 11. On the other hand, Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Complete Insulation has held that; transfer of vehicle by owner premium for the insurance paid by transferee, got transfer of registration and asked for transfer of insurance policy, meanwhile vehicle met with an accident, the transferee asked for the assessment of the damage of the vehicle, held there was no agreement between the insurer and transferee to cover risk or damage to vehicle, insurer is not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 157 scope liability of the insurer certificate of insurance is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee of the vehicle the provision applied only in relation to third party risk only. 12. In that case, the claim of the transferee of the car which was damaged in the accident was negatived on the ground that there was no transfer of the insurance policy to the name of transferee and hence Section 457 is not applicable to the vehicle of the transferee as there was no agreement between the insurer and transferee to cover the risk and damage to the vehicle. The principle of the Supreme Court has been followed by our Honble National Commission in III (2007) CPJ 411 in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs- Harinder Kaur and held that when the insurance policy is not transferred to the transferee and the owner of the car had insurance policy and though the car was transferred to the transferee, the car met with an accident and transferee died, no steps were taken for transferring the policy after transfer of car. The transferee is not entitled to get benefit of insurance policy and the claim of insurance is not tenable and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 13. Our National Commission again in IV (2008) CPJ page 65 in the case of Omprakash Sharma Vs- National Insurance Company has held that when a vehicle is owned by owner and transferred to the purchasers name, but the purchaser has not applied for transfer of policy when the vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the purchasers name, Section 157 of MV Act applies to third party risk, not to own damage claim. So, the purchaser has not loco-standi to file complaint and not entitled to relief. 14. Under these circumstances, in view of the position of law, though the complainant is the transferee of the lorry which met with an accident and damaged and when he has not applied for transfer of the insurance policy standing in the name of the previous owner to his name, there is no automatic or deemed transfer of the policy to his name under section 157 of the MV Act and hence, there is no insurable interest on the part of the complainant and hence, the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite party is just and proper. Hence, Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to the cost of damages, caused to the lorry in the accident. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of January 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
