Karnataka

StateCommission

A/812/2019

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Siddappa.B.M. - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar.M.R.

26 Jul 2021

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/812/2019
( Date of Filing : 10 May 2019 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/03/2019 in Case No. CC/501/2016 of District Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional)
 
1. Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, No.31, 3rd floor, Above Croma Showroom, Shravanee Krishna Mansion, 100 ft. road, 2nd block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Siddappa.B.M.
S/o Late Manchaiah, Aged about 53 years, No.300, MIG II KHB, 4th cross, 2nd Main, Mahadeshwaranagar, Channapatna Town, Ramanagara District.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Jul 2021
Final Order / Judgement

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

 

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2021

 

PRESENT

 

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

 

APPEAL NOS. 812/2019

 

Future Generali India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

No.31, 3rd Floor Above Croma Showroom,

Shravanee Krishna Mansion, 100 feet road,

2nd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011.

 

(By Shri/Smt. Majoj Kumar M.R., Adv.,)

 

                                          -Versus-

 

Siddappa B.M. S/o Late Manchaiah,

Aged about 53 years,

No.300, MIG H KHB, 4th Cross,

2nd Main, Mahadeshwaranagar,

Channapatna Town, Ramanagara District.

………Respondent/s

(By Sri/Smt. M.G.Sateesha, Adv.,)

: ORDER:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The Opposite Party in complaint No.501/2016 preferred this appeal against the order dated:16.03.2019 passed by Bangalore Urban I Additional District Commission, wherein the District Commission directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,50,233/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% PA from the date of claim till payment along with Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.      The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission. 

3.      The brief facts of the complaint is that:-

          The complainant had purchased one Maruthi Swift Dezire VDI car bearing registration No.KA-02-MJ-5007 from the previous owner Kumaraswamy who insured the said vehicle with the Opposite Party vide policy bearing No.2015-V3741931FPV which is valid from 30.04.2015 to 29.04.2016 and paid a sum of Rs.21,200/-.  After purchase of the vehicle, the complainant made a requisition with the jurisdictional RTO, Ramanagara for transfer of the vehicle in his name on 13.10.2015 by paying required fee.  On 16.10.2015 registration of the said vehicle was transferred into his name and the said RTO has sent the said registration certificate to the complainant through registered post on 15.12.2015.  After receiving the said R.C., the complainant made arrangements to transfer the insurance policy from the previous owner to his name.  Unfortunately on 23.12.2015 at about 12.30 in the midnight, the vehicle caught fire and 75% of the portion of the vehicle was damaged.  Immediately, he registered a police complaint and police have registered a case in FA 5/2015 and mahazar was drawn.  There afterwards, he intimated the same to the dealer Kalyani Motors who took the vehicle by towing and gave estimation for repair.  After towing the vehicle to the Garage, the complainant made a claim with all required documents on 28.12.2015 under own damage claim from Opposite Party.  But in spite of settling the claim, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim through their letter dated:22.01.2011.   Hence, alleged deficiency in service and filed the complaint.       

4.       After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared before the District Commission and filed the version contending that as on the date of accident, the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle and he has not made any attempts to transfer the vehicle into his name and also not made any efforts to transfer the insurance policy also into his name.  Hence, the complainant has no insurable interest and shown inability to settle the claim and submits no deficiency in service on their side. 

5.       After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,50,233/- together with interest along with cost and damages. 

6.       Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party filed this appeal on many grounds.

7.       We have heard the arguments on both sides.

8.       On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased MARUTI SWIFT DEZIRE VDI car bearing registration No.KA-02-MJ-5007 from the previous owner Kumaraswamy on 13.10.2015.   There afterwards, he made a requisition to RTO, Ramanagara for transfer of the R.C. into his name by paying necessary fee.  The said RTO has transferred the said vehicle into complainant’s name on 16.10.2015 and sent the R.C. through registered post to the complainant on 15.12.2015.  On 23.12.2015 the vehicle caught fire and 75% was damaged. 

9.       The complainant before the District Commission has sworn that he had made all arrangements for transfer of insurance policy into his name since he received the registration certificate on 15/12/2015 which reflected his name.  But unfortunately during that time, the vehicle met with fire accident.  By virtue of the policy is in force, the complainant claimed for damages to the tune of Rs.2,55,233/-.  But the Opposite Party repudiated the claim for the reason that as on the date of fire accident, the complainant has no insurable interest and the policy was stood in the name of one Kumaraswamy and submits no deficiency in service.

10.     Of-course, the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of fire accident.  Anyhow, the R.C. was transferred into his name as on the date of fire accident.  The District Commission has rightly appreciated that there is 14 days grace period was provided under the policy terms and conditions for transfer of the insurance certificate into his name.  During that period, the accident was occurred.  This is an exceptional case, where we found there is no any negligence on the part of complainant with respect to the transfer of registration and also made an attempt for transfer of the policy.  The fire accident is an act of god, which caused damages.  Hence, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the loss/damages suffered to the vehicle and the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint by appreciating the grace period of 14 days.

11.     The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that there are N numbers of decisions reported with reference to the no liability on the part of Insurance Company if there is no insurable interest at the time of accident and in that regard produced some citations, which are as under:-

1. (1996) SCC 221, Page 222 Last Para, Para 10 & Page 228,

2. II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) Head Note, Para 9 & 10,

3. RP No.4387/2009, (NC) Page 7 Para 1 & 2 & Last Page,

4. II (2010) CPJ 300 Head Note (ii) and

5. RP No.3373/2018 DD on 12.04.2019, Page 5 para 7.  

 

12.     On going through the above said citations, we noticed that there is negligence on the part of owner of the vehicle who not made any attempt for transfer of the insurance policy into his name and the above citations are not applicable to the case on hand.  In the instant case, we do not find any negligence on the part of complainant in making an attempt to transfer the R.C. into his name and also making an attempt to transfer the policy into his name during the grace period of 14 days. 

13.     The learned counsel for Opposite Party further argued that as per Section 145 of  IMV Act, they are the Insurer who issued the insurance policy by covering 3rd party coverage and Section 157 of IMV Act, does not provide settlement of own damage claim when there is no insurable interest on the side of claimant.  Whereas in the instant case, the claimant is subsequent owner who transfers the R.C. into his name and we are of the opinion that once the R.C. was transferred into his name, it is admitted that he holds the certificate of insurance in his name till expiry of 14 days as stipulated U/s 157 of IMV Act.  The liability of the insurance company covers not only to the 3rd party, it also covers the own damage claim if such damage was caused beyond the claimant’s control/negligence/act of God.      As such, we found no grounds in the appeal and there is no error in the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, the appeal fails.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-  

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:16.03.2019 passed by Bangalore Urban I Additional District commission, Bangalore in C.C.No.501/2016 is hereby confirmed. 

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.

 

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.