IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 348/09 DATED 19.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Amaravathi .M.M. Managing Director, Sky Way International Travels, No.370/4, J.L.B. Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. D.S.S, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Muslim Hostel Comples, Opp. Firebridge, 1st Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.<br /> ( By Sri. J.S.K. Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 01.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 19.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 18 Days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,692/- towards the expenses incurred for repair of the vehicle which met with an accident, as well as interest and damages.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts it is alleged that the complainant purchased the vehicle No: KA-09-A4623 from one B. Jagadish on 18.03.2009. R.C. book was transferred in the name of the complainant. Due to inadvertence and over sight transfer of the vehicle was not effected in the Insurance Policy with the opposite party. The policy stands in the name of the earlier owner for a period 10.02.2009 to 09.02.2010. On 20.04.2009, said vehicle met with an accident. In the accident, vehicle was damaged. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested to settle the claim. The opposite party informed the complainant that, the claim of the complainant cannot be entertained for the reason that the change of ownership in vehicle insurance has not been effected in the name of complainant within 14 days from the date of purchase. But the fact remains, as on the date of the accident, there was valid insurance. The opposite party ought to have paid the damages claimed by the complainant. By the letter dated 26.05.2009 opposite party informed the complainant to get the vehicle surveyed and assessed the loss at his cost and name of the surveyor was furnished. On 09.07.2009, the surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted the report. In fact the complainant had incurred Rs.72,272/- towards repairing the vehicle. The complainant had submitted the claim form to the opposite party along with relevant documents. The opposite party has not settled the claim. The complainant has sustained loss to the sum of Rs.15,000/-, on account of delay on the part of the opposite party. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party has contended that there is no cause of auction and that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant has no right against the opposite party. There is no contract of any sort between the parties. It is contended that, the complainant did not inform the opposite party about the change of ownership and did not make efforts to get the policy transferred in his name. It is contended that, the complainant is stranger to contract of insurance and he cannot prefer claim. GR 17 of India Motor Tariff Regulations is quoted. It is contended that there is no legal obligation on the part of the opposite party to satisfy the claim of the complainant. Also it is denied that the complainant incurred the loss as alleged. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. On the other hand the Divisional Manager of opposite party has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. we have heard the arguments of learned advocates for the complainant and opposite party and perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that, even though there was no change of transfer in the Insurance Policy in respect of the vehicle as on the date of the accident, there was an obligation on the part of the opposite party to satisfy the claim.<br /> 2. If so, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought? What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : Partly affirmative<br /> Point no.3 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1:- The fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle KA 09 A 4623 from the earlier owner B. Jagadish on 18.03.2009 and R.C book was transfered in her name is admitted. Also it is admitted that, said vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the policy was valid from 10.02.2009 to 09.02.2010. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.04.2009. This fact also is not disputed.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party has contended that, in view of GR17 of India Motor Tariff Regulations, within 14 days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, the complainant did not intimate the opposite party regarding purchase of the vehicle and there was no change of the name of the earlier owner and hence, the complainant is stranger to the contract of insurance and there is no legal obligation on the part of the opposite party and further, there is no cause of auction and that the complainant is not a consumer. <br /> <br /> 9. The learned advocate in support of his submissions relied on the rulings reported in 2007 CPJ 410 and 2007 CPJ 245. On the other hand advocate for the complainant relied on the rulings reported in III (2008) CPJ 505, III 2006 CPJ 3003 and 2009(3) T.A.C 71. Narration of the facts of these rulings and the law laid down therein is not necessary, in view of the subsequent recent decision.<br /> <br /> 10. In Oriental Insurance Company V/S Ohm Prakash Guptha and another, reported in I(2009) CPJ 183 Hon’ble National Commission has held that as per GR10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee on sale of vehicle, benefits under policy on the date of transfer automatically accrue to new owner and vehicle already transferred in the name of the complainant in RTO records entitle to benefits accruing from the policy. Insurer held liable to pay damages to the vehicle with interest. The present opposite party, Oriental Insurance Company Limited was party to the said decision and the opposite party now, cannot contend contrary.<br /> <br /> 11. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No.2:- The complainant has claimed repairing charges at Rs.72,272/- and in this regard, certain documents are produced. However, as per the instructions of the opposite party, the complainant got the survey report from the surveyor, the name that was suggested by the opposite party, who has estimated the loss at Rs.73,450/-. The approximate net loss is working out to Rs.40,289/-. Later, after the vehicle was repaired said surveyor again inspected the vehicle and made assessment of the loss at Rs.23,800/- and towing charges Rs.1,000/-. Considering this report, the loss is rounded to Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 13. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant mainly on the ground that, the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant within 14 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. But in view of the ruling sited supra, said contention of the opposite party will not sustain. It is relevant to note that, in the ruling that the advocate for the complainant has relied upon, it was observed punitive costs were imposed for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing the provision of India Motor Tariff Regulations. In the case on hand also in fact in the decision referred to above the present opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited was party and as held by the Hon’ble National Commission, in fact the opposite party ought to have honoured the claim of the complainant. Hence, under the circumstances, from the date of the claim made by the complainant, the opposite party is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. So also damages of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience, in addition to the cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 14. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 15. Point No. 3:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim made by the complainant till realization, within a month from the date of the order.<br /> 3. Further the opposite party shall pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused with in a month from date of the order and on failure, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.<br /> 4. Also the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 19th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />