BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 1319 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.70 OF 2005
DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE
Between:
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
P.B.No.33, Bhagya Nagar, 1st Floor,
Birudaraja Towers, Trunk road,
Ongole
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Sami Vijaya Kumar S/o Venkata Subrahmanyam
aged 35 yrs, SVKP Temple Street,
Podili Post & Mandal, Prakasam Dist.
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the appellant Sri S.Sravan Kumar
Counsel for the respondent Sri P.Nagendra Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The short question involved in the appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order in C.D.No.70 of 2005 passed by the District Forum, Prakasam is about the liability of insurance company in a situation where the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle was effected but the insurance policy obtained by the previous owner of the vehicle was not transferred in favour of subsequent owner of the vehicle who is the complainant in C.D.
The facts in brief are that the respondent is the owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-27U-8018 and he purchased it from the original owner of the vehicle, Jagarlamudi Parvathamma who on 27.5.2003 insured the vehicle with the appellant. The appellant issued a cover note bearing No.282827 in favour of the previous owner of the vehicle. The ownership of the vehicle was transferred on 25.9.2003 in favour of the respondent. On 19.5.2004 when the vehicle was proceeding from Ongole towards Naidupuram, it met with an accident at Boodanam Village of Chilukuru Mandal, Nellore District on account of which the vehicle sustained damage. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and on 18.6.2004 submitted his report. The respondent got repaired the vehicle at Akbar Auto Engineering Works and he incurred an amount of Rs.60,835/- towards spare parts, Rs.37,800/- towards labour charges and Rs.675/- towards Surveyor’s fee. The vehicle was re-inspected by the Surveyor who issued re-inspection report dated 9.8.2004. The claim of the respondent was repudiated and a reply was also issued by the appellant to the notice got issued by the respondent. The respondent sought direction for payment of an amount of Rs.1,02,810/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs.
The appellant resisted the claim. It was contended that the respondent has not informed about the transfer of the vehicle in his favour from its previous owner. The previous owner of the vehicle who obtained the insurance policy also had not informed the appellant about transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent. The policy stands in favour of the insured Parvathamma. No transfer certificate was obtained from the appellant by the respondent. As per the motor tariff regulations, the transferee of the vehicle has to inform the insurance company within 14 days of such transfer for effecting the change of ownership of the vehicle in the insurance records and for the purpose of issuing fresh certificate in favour of the new owner of the vehicle. The respondent had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of the accident. The appellant was not informed of the accident and as such no surveyor could be sent to assess the damage.
Basing on the documents Exs.A1 to A11, the District Forum allowed the complaint by awarding a sum of Rs.1,02,810/- with interest and costs.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant company preferred the appeal on the ground that there was no proper appreciation evidence by the District Forum and that the respondent was held entitled to the benefits under the policy as he stepped into the shoe of the previous owner.
The point for consideration is whether there is any ground which does warrant interference with the findings of the District Forum?
There is no dispute in regard to the facts of ownership of Jagarlamudi Parvathamma over the TATA Sumo bearing NO.AP-27 U8019 and the issuance of insurance policy in her favour by the appellant company and also the fact that the vehicle was sold by the original owner to the respondent whereby the transfer of ownership was effected in the registration certificate pertaining to the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that either the original owner or the respondent had not informed about the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the respondent, to the appellant company. In the absence of any information in regard to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be held responsible for any liability arising out of the terms of the insurance policy issued in favour of the original owner of the vehicle. It is also to be noted that in case of transfer ownership of the vehicle, the insurance policy has also to be transferred in favour of the subsequent owner of the vehicle. The respondent has not informed the appellant company. No fresh certificate incorporating the changes in regard to the ownership of the vehicle issued in favour of the respondent making him entitled to the benefits conferred under the insurance policy was issued in favour of the respondents. Therefore, we hold that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits under the policy and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In “ United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.C.Deenadayal and Anr.” in R.P.No.426 of 2007 decided on 13.3.2009, the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding revision which arose out of an order passed by this State Commission, held as follows:
“Under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner of the vehicle should have informed the Transport Authority about the sale of the vehicle and the purchaser should have sought the incorporation of her name in the R.C. as the transferee owner. Further, in order to avail the benefit of insurance, the purchaser should have informed the insurance company within 14 days of its purchase under Sec.157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case.”
Further, it was held “ We are supported in our view by judgment of this Commission in Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.l and Anr.1 (2009) CPJ 158 (NC) to which which one of us (Justice R.K.Batta) was a party. Under the circumstances the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent/complainant no.2 who purchased the vehicle has stepped into the shoes of the respondent/complainant no.1 and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the insurance is totally erroneous and therefore, not sustainable.”
In view of the settled legal position and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 9.8.2005 of the District Forum, Prakasam. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
PRESIDING MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.05.06.2009
