IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 26/08 DATED 19.03.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Rajanna.L., S/o Lingegowda, R/o 5th Cross, Near Govt. Primary School, Halahally, Mandya City.<br /> (By Sri.M.N.Bettappa., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., 1st Floor, Mysore Trade Centre, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bangalore-506001.<br /> (O.P.1 – EXPARTE AND By Smt. K.L.Sugandi, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 23.01.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 18.02.2009<br /> Date of order : 19.03.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of Tata Indica Car No.KA-09-N-3045 and R.C. of that vehicle stands in his name. That the vehicle has a valid insurance from 27.11.2007 to 26.11.2008. On 12.11.2008 his driver one Shashikumar was driving the vehicle at about 4.30 pm met with an accident and a criminal case has been registered in connection with this accident. That he purchased the car from one Basavaraju and got the R.C. changed to his name on 08.07.2008. After the accident he informed the same to the opposite parties whose surveyor visited the spot and then he got the vehicle repaired by spending Rs.73,010/- and submitted claim to opposite parties who have repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle insurance policy has not yet been got transferred from the previous owner to the name of the complainant and therefore they are unable to settle the claim. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.73,010/- as repair charges, Rs.25,000/- towards inconvenience and hardship and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The first opposite party who is duly served has remained absent is placed exparte. The second opposite party appeared through hisadvocate and filed version contending that insurance policy of the vehicle as on the date of the accident was still in the name of the earlier owner Basavaraju and as there is no contract of insurance between them and the complainant, they are not liable to reimburse the repair charges. After getting the R.C. transferred on 08.07.2008, the complainant ought to have got the insurance policy transferred in his name within 14 days as per the conditions of the policy, but the complainant since has not got the same transferred is not entitled for reimbursement and therefore have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Assistant Manager of the second opposite party have filed their version reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with this complaint has produced the repudation letter issued by the second opposite party on 18.11.2008, copy of the FIR, and the insurance policy with the bill for having got the damaged vehicle repaired with copies of R.C. The second opposite party has produced copy of the insurance policy. Heard the counsel for the complainant and second opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in repudiating the claim on the ground that insurance policy of the vehicle has not been transferred from the previous owner to the name of the complainant?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- As could be viewed from the contentions of both the parties, there is no controvercy with regard to the fact that the vehicle bearing No.kA-09-N-3045, which was belonging to one Basavaraju was purchased by this complainant and the R.C. of the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 08.07.2008. But, the complainant had not got transferred the policy of the vehicle till the date of accident and therefore as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy of the vehicle was still standing in the name of the earlier owner namely Basavaraju.<br /> <br /> 7. The claim of the complainant that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.11.2008 and that the complainant had informed about this accident to the opposite parties is not denied by the second opposite party. Further the claim of the complainant that he got the damaged vehicle repaired by spending Rs.73,010/- has also not been disputed by the opposite parties. The only contention raised by the second opposite party as evident from their version and affidavit is, that there was no contract of insurance between them and the complainant, as such the complainant in whose favour the policy had not been transferred as on the date of the accident, they have stated that they are not liable to reimburse that amount and thus have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, dispute between the parties boils out to the limited contention that the opposite parties have raised for reimbursing the repair expenditure of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant by relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karntaka reported in 2005 (2) KCCR page 936 between Sri Veeresh Vs. Sri Siraj Ahamed and others and also a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2007 (IV) CPJ page 289 between Sri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. submitted if the insurance policy had not been transferred from the previous owner to the name of the transferee, insurance company is liable to reimburse the repair expenditure and therefore submitted for a direction to the opposite parties as prayed for. Whereas the learned counsel representing the second opposite party besides her written arguments to supplement her arguments relied upon a decision reported in III (2007) CPJ page 411 NC between United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. Harindar Kaur and one more decisions one of Hon’ble Naitonal Commission reported in I (2007) CPJ page 23 and another of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (V) Civil Law Journal page 548 and submitted that, if the transferee had not got the insurance policy of the purchased vehicle transferred to his name, the complainant will not be entitled for reimbursement of the repair expenditure and submitted for disposal of the complaint. The other two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the second opposite party have no bearing on the facts of this case. Though, in the first decision of the Hon’ble National Commission relied upon by her it is held, if the transferee had not taken the steps for transferring policy after transfer of car, transferee is not entitle to get benefit of insurance policy, but this decision has been rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission basing on the Rules of the insurance company which were applicable to that case. But in this case, the learned counsel representing the second opposite party has not brought to our notice any rule which excludes the complainant from claiming the insurance amount when he has not got the insurance transferred to his name. The Hon’ble National Commission in another decision reported in IV (2007) CPJ 289 between Sri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and further in a latest decision reported in I (2009) CPJ page 183 between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and another has been pleased to hold where the vehicle has already been transferred in the name of the complainant in RTO records and even if the insurance policy has not been got transferred, the complainant would be entitled to the benefits accruing from policy and has held that the insurer is liable to pay the insurance amount. Therefore, in view of the latest decisions, which are rendered based on GR 10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee on sale of vehicle and benefit under the policy on date of transfer and they have further stated that benefits will ensure to the benefit of the owner of the vehicle, with this we find no merits in the contention of the second opposite party and their counsel and as such the opposite parties are not right in repudiating the claim of the complainant, and the repudiation amounts to deficiency in their service and therefore answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally held liable to reimburse the complainant of his repair expenses and are directed to pay Rs.73,010/- within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The first and second opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. 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 March 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />