Date of Filing: 20/09/2011
Date of Order:31/10/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1215 OF 2010
Mr. Raghu, S/o. Nanjappa,
R/at:Chalanagankanahalli,
Thippagondanahalli,
BANGALORE.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty) …. Complainant.
V/s
1. Oriental Insurance Company,
Regional Office
No.-45/45 Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Cross Road, M.G. Road,
BANGALORE-560 001.
Rep. by Regional Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office No.10, # 79, DWARAKA,
IInd Floor, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, CHENNAI.
Rep. by Divisional Manager.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.H.B.Vijaya Kumar) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- are necessary:-
The complainant had availed Insurance to his Goods Vehicle No. KA-53-2277 with the opposite party, by paying the premium, and the Insurance is valid between 29.06.2007 & 28.06.2008. On 06.06.2008 the said vehicle met with an accident near Water Tank Road, Channapatna Town and certain damages were caused to the vehicle. The complainant spent huge amount with respect to repair. After the accident the complainant had made a claim with the opposite party and furnished the necessary details and documents. The opposite party entrusted the matter to the surveyor who inspected the vehicle and prepared the report and sent it to the opposite party. In spite of that the opposite party has failed to indemnify the complainant. The complainant had kept the vehicle in the Garage for a long time for repair, without any earning, causing huge loss. The complainant had borrowed huge loans from Financial Institutions to purchase the said vehicle. Now the financier is demanding for repayment of the loan amount and also issued notice demanding payment of due amount. On 14.12.2009 complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party. There was no compliance. Hence, the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
There was no declaration that the complainant had filed any case before any other Forum regarding the same cause of action. The complaint is civil in nature. It is barred by time. The Insurance policy was issued in favour of H. Nagendra Babu in respect of the vehicle in question this was transferred to the name of the complainant which effect from 10.06.2008, after date of the alleged accident, accordingly an Endorsement Schedule was issued by this opposite party which is effective from 28.06.2008. Hence there was no previty of contract between the complainant and the opposite party with respect to the alleged accident on 06.06.2008. The complainant has not given any intimation about the accident to this opposite party. Spot survey was arranged by the financer i.e., Shriram Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd., and no claim form has been sent by them also and in the absence of any claim form, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. A letter to complainant was issued on 26.08.2009 for furnishing claim form and also vehicle documents and the said cover was returned as “insufficient address” and later the complainant issued notice on 14.12.2009 to which the suitable reply was issued to him. The documents produced by the complainant are concocted. The claim is fanciful, speculative and exorbitant.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents and also filed the written arguments. On that on 30.07.2010 this Forum has passed certain orders. Aggrieved by that the opposite party has preferred Appeal No.5209/2010 before the Hon’ble State Commission which on 24.08.2011 has passed an order which reads thus:-
“The appeal is Allowed. The impugned order is set-aside.
The matter is remitted back to the D.F., for denovo enquiry and permits the parties to adduce further evidence if any after giving them sufficient opportunity and after hearing the arguments, dispose off the complaint in accordance with law.
The amount if any deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to it if a memo is filed.”
After receipt of the orders from the Hon’ble State Commission this Forum has issued notice to both the parties and both the parties were served with the notice. The opposite party has engaged the service of an advocate. The complainant though received the notice of the hearing date dated: 04.10.2011 as per the postal acknowledgment has not appeared nor his advocate appeared. Subsequently the counsel for the opposite party submitted that they have no further evidence in the matter. The complainant has not led any further evidence. Hence the counsel for the opposite party is heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether the opposite party has transferred the insurance of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant from Nanjappa for the period between 29.06.2007 to midnight of 28.06.2008?
- Whether the complainant has furnished the claim form with respect to the accident in question to the opposite party and had informed the accident to the opposite party?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it is an undisputed fact that H. Narendra Babu was the owner of the vehicle No. KA-53-2277 he had insured the said vehicle with the opposite party in Policy No. 412000/31/2008/6463 and this was valid between 29.06.2007 and 28.06.2008. It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle and the RC was transferred to his name on 10.06.2008 and the opposite party has issued an Endorsement Schedule in the policy in this regard. The Endorsement Schedule is effective from 29.06.2007 to 28.06.2008.
7. It is also an undisputed fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 06.06.2008 and the case was registered on the offending vehicle in Crime No.72/2008 by Ramanagaram Police. In this regard the opposite party has issued the policy No.412999/31/2008/6463 to the complainant on 10.06.2008. The relevant portion of the policy reads thus:-
That is to say on 10.06.2008 the opposite party after transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant has issued the policy transferring the policy from Nanjappa’s name to the complainant’s name and stated that the policy will be effective between 29.06.2007 and 28.06.2008. It is not restricted to any other period mentioned.
8. The opposite party had produced a package policy endorsement schedule dated: 10.06.2008. This document is only a copy it does not contain signature or seal of anybody. That states that this endorsement is effective between 10.06.2008 and 28.06.2008. This document is prepared by one Savithri. This has not been signed by the opposite party nor received by the complainant. Hence this document has no relavence or has no basis to say that as on the date of the accident this policy is not covered and the complainant is not entitled to the benefits of the policy. According to the terms of the policy as stated supra it is covered between 29.06.2007 and 28.06.2008. When that is the case the contention of the opposite party that this policy has no bearing to the complainant since it was not transferred to his name.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party has stated an unreported judgment of National Commission between Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Reeta in Revision Petition No.2299 of 2005 dated: 20.10.2009. There is no dispute above the proposition of law laid down therein. The facts and circumstances is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. As on the date of the accident i.e., on 06.06.2008 the police was effective in the name of the complainant as per the policy issued by the opposite party as on 10.06.2008 itself. Hence the said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission is not applicable to this case.
10. The main contention of the opposite party is that as on the date of accident i.e., on 06.06.2008 the vehicle met with an accident and on that day the vehicle was in the name of H. Narendra Babu and hence the complainant is not entitled to the same. This is untenable contention. In case between Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Om Prakash Gupta reported in I(2009) CPJ-183 the National Commission is ruled thus:-
“Insurable interest contention, vehicle transferred to transferee, Insurance policy not transferred. No insurable interest created in-favour of complainant, contention not acceptable. As per GR-10, issued by Tariff Advisory Committee on sale of vehicle, benefits under policy, on date of transfer, automatically accrue to new owner, vehicle already transferred in name of complainant in RTO Record, complainant entitled to benefits accruing from policy. Insurer held liable to pay value of vehicle with interest. No interference required in revision”.
This is in all force applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. If the vehicle is transferred in the name of the complainant, the benefits accrued under the policy is also transferred to the transferee. Hence the complainant is entitled to the benefits of the insurance policy.
11. The complainant has stated that he has made the claim and informed the accident to the opposite party and he has laid the claim before the opposite which the opposite party had denied. The complainant never stated on what date he has informed about the accident to the opposite party? Or on what date he laid the claim regarding the incident? In this case no document is fourth coming.
12. The complainant has produced the copy of the insurance policy, copy of the notice dated: 14.12.2009, copy of the postal acknowledgment and copy of the FIR in crime No.72/2008 of the jurisdictional policy that’s all. None of these documents establish that the complainant had informed about the accident to the opposite party nor on a particular date nor it says that he has laid a particular claim regarding accident on a particular date.
13. Though the accident is dated: 06.06.2008 he had not informed the accident till he has issued notice to the opposite party on 14.12.2009. From 06.06.2008 till 14.12.2009 why he has not informed the accident to the opposite party? Why he has not made any claim with the opposite party? There is no answer. How he got it repaired? Where he got it repaired? Why it was not informed to the opposite party? Whether the vehicle had sustained any damages? Is not at all whispered. Even photographs of the alleged vehicle is not produced. Hence the claim is as bald as it could be.
14. Even the complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint or in the affidavit filed earlier or in the notice issued to the opposite party what is the damage the vehicle sustained, what is the repair that has been made, when it has been made, where it has been made, and how much he has paid for the repair, to whom he has paid for the repair, is not at all stated. Even the complainant has not produced any mahazar with respect to the accident. If any damage has been sustained to the vehicle naturally the police would have drawn some mahazar, even that has not been done. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st Day of October 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
