Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,12,200/- being the amount spent towards repairs of her car; Rs.38,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony and Rs.29,901/- being the interest @18% p.a. from 31-10-2010 to 23/04/2012 besides costs.   

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are hereunder:

The complainant on 08-03-10 purchased Tata Indica car bearing No.AP 28 AQ 4089 from one P. Gayathri Rudrama Devi, Hyderabad with the financial assistance of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Guntur.  The vehicle was insured with the opposite party under the policy bearing No.10002/31/10/004109 for the period from 14-02-10 to 13-02-10.   The said car met with an accident on               30-10-10   at Budampadu bypass near Guntur.  The complainant after intimating to the opposite party took the said car for repair to                     M/s Jasper Industries Private Limited, Guntur. The surveyor on                22-11-10 estimated the net loss at Rs.1,12,200/-.  Inspite of lapse of fifteen months the opposite party has not settled the claim.   The proceedings before arbitrator are null and void.   There was no response from the opposite party even to the complainant’s notice dated 17-02-12.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The insured was Smt P. Gayathri Rudrama Devi.  The car in question was transferred to the complainant on 08-03-10.  The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as she was not the insured.   The claim of the complainant can be dismissed on this count alone.   There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  The complainant did not mention as to how the accident took place.   The vehicle should have been kept at the alleged place of accident till inspection by the concerned staff of this opposite party.    The complainant was asked to appear before the arbitrator to clarify in regard to the claim as she was not the insured.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service. The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Ex.A-1 to A-5 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1.  Whether there is privity of contract between the complainant                       and the opposite party?

2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of             Service?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

4.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to? 

6.      Admitted facts in this case are these:

a) The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing

        No. AP28 AQ 4089 (Ex.A-1=B-1).

b) The opposite party issued insurance policy (Ex.A-2).

c) One B. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy assessed the net loss at                                Rs.1,12,200/- (Ex.A-3).

d) The complainant sent notice to the opposite party on

        17-02-12 who in turn received it on 27-02-12                                  (Exs.A-4 and A-5).

7.      POINT NO.1 :-   The opposite party filed Ex.B-2 repudiation letter dated 07-02-11 said to have been addressed to Gayathri Rudrama Devi.   The opposite party did not file either the postal receipt or acknowledgement to show that it sent.   The contents of  Ex.B-2 revealed that the opposite party was aware of the transfer of vehicle in the name of the complainant and it received claim from the complainant.   I see no reason for the opposite party in not sending a copy of Ex.B-2 to the complainant.  

8.    The complaint as well as her affidavit was silent who insured the vehicle covered by Ex.A-1.  The registry while numbering the complaint took an objection regarding the locus standi of the complainant of the complaint to file this complaint.   The complainant answered the said objection by endorsing that the complainant has got registration certificate in her favour copy of which is filed herewith.   The above endorsement clearly revealed that the complainant is not the insurer.   Ex.A-2 policy amounted to a contract between the insured and the insurer.  In Ex.A-3 report the surveyor mentioned that the policy was in favour of Gayathri whereas RC was in favour of the complainant.   

9.     The learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon the decisions reported in 2008 (3) CPR 240, 2009 (3) CPR 341 and FA.No. 1319 /2006 (of APSCDRC.)  On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that the policy goes along with the transfer of vehicle. 

10.   On Ex.A2 policy it was not mentioned that purchaser of any vehicle has to apply seeking transfer of insurance policy with in 14 days as rightly contended by the complainant. 

 11.  Section 157 of MV Act deals with Transfer of Certificate of Insurance and it reads as follows: 

Transfer of Certificate of Insurance : (1),  Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 

        [Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.]

(2). The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. 

12. In Om Prakash Sarma Vs The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2008 (3) CPR 240) it was held

“In regard to entitlement of the petitioner to the amount claimed in the complaint Shr.J.P.Sharma, Adv.for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the decisions in Banwari Lal Aggarwal Vs.National Insurance Company Ltd, And Another and M/s.  Complete. Insulations (P) Ltd. V New India Assurance Co., Ltd.  Complete Insulations (p) Ltd,’s case would show that said Section 157 applies to third party risk and not own damage claim.  In Banwari Lal Aggarwal’s case the vehicle was not transferred in the name of purchaser by the time it was damaged by fire on 10.09.1995.  Vendor of the vehicle was not a party to the complaint.  In this backdrop, revision petition was disposed of with direction that upon making representation by the insured vendor the insurance company will sympathetically consider his claim taking note of the report of the surveyor.  Apparently, neither the provision contained in above Section 157 nor these two decisions are of any help to the petitioner.  It is pertinent to mention that against the order of District Forum dated 05.03.2006, Shankar Lal had not filed any appeal/revision and qua him the order of dismissal of complaint has attained finality.  Mere array of Shankar Lal as complainant No.2 will thus be of no assistance to the petitioner in this revision.  As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint.  Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service.  There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of CP Act, 1986.  Accordingly, revision is dismissed”.

13.  In United India Insurance company Limited vs V.C. Deenadayal 2009 CPR 341 (NC) it was held

“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 Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which admittedly has not been done in this case.  After purchase of vehicle, the insurance policy has been renewed twice i.e., from 03.02.2000 to 02.02.2001 and from 03.02.2001 to 02.02.2002.  In the circumstances, it is apparent that the complainants dishonestly combined the insurance in the in the name of complainant No. 1 and dishonestly claimed ‘no claim bonus’.  The real owner complainant had neither registration in her name nor insurance.  She has no insurable interest nor privity of contract with petitioner.  The original owner cannot maintain any claim against insurance.  We are supported in our view by judgment of this Commission in Madan Singh V. United India Insurance complaint, Ltd, and Anr, to 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. 1 and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the insurance is totally erroneous and, therefore, not sustainable.  In order to avail the benefit under the policy, there has to be a contract between the parties and defacto possession of the vehicle will not confer any legal right on respondent/complainant no.2 to avail the benefit under the policy.  

14.   The above decision was followed in B.M United India Insurance Company Limited, Ongole. Vs Sammy Vijay Kumar (FA No. 1319 of 2006 decided on 05-06-2009).

15. Relying on the above decisions the contention of the complainant that transfer of insurance policy goes along with the vehicle cannot be accepted. We therefore opine that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant. 

16.    POINTS 2&3:  In view of the above findings, in the result the complainant is not entitled to any relief much less those claimed.

17.    POINT NO. 4:    In view of the above findings, In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

Typed to my dictation by junior steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 9^th day of October, 2012.

          MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party :

                                          PRESIDENT