FA  689 of 2011  against CC  6/2011,  Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram

Between:

1)  Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Vizianagaram

2)  Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Divisional Manager

III Floor, VIP Road, CBM Compound

Visakapatnam

3)  Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd.

GE Plaza, Air Port Road,

Yerrawada, Pune-411 006.                          ***                           Appellants/

          .                                                                                       Opposite Parties

                                                                   And

Pinniti  Ramachandra Rao

S/o. Late Yellam Naidu

Boodi Veedhi

Poospatirerega (V&M)

Vizianagaram Dist.                                     ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant  

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s. N. Mohan Krishna, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:                      M/s Y.V.Narasimhacharyulu            

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

                                  SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO,  MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1,75,522/- together with costs of Rs. 3,000/-.

2)                The case of the complainant  in brief is that  he purchased a second hand  Omni Maruthi van from  one Sunkara Rama Krishna  on  15.11.2010  who had taken a policy for a sum of Rs. 1,75,522/- covering the period from  15.6.2010 to 14.6.2011.   The said fact was informed to the insurance company  under certificate of posting dt. 16.11.2010.  While so, on 18.11.2010  while it was stationed the fire broke out from the vehicle and  was completely burnt.  The fire department  opined the cause of fire was due to gas leak.   The said fact was intimated to the insurance company, however, it did not settle the claim.   Since he was  a purchaser of the vehicle, he was entitled to the amount covered under the policy.  Therefore he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 1,75,522/- together with compensation and costs. 

3)                The  appellant insurance company  resisted the case.    However, it admitted that  one Sunkara Rama Krishna was the owner of the vehicle and the policy was issued in  his name valid from 15.6.2010 to 14.6.2011.   when the fact that the vehicle was damaged was  informed, verification was made and it was found that though registration certificate (RC) was transferred in the name of the complainant, as there was no intimation in regard to transfer of policy the same was not effected in his favour.   There was no contract to indemnify the loss caused in favour of the complainant.   For effecting transfer of  Policy, GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff   has to be complied.    The transferee shall apply within 14 days  from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery  to the insurer who had insured the vehicle  with details of registration of the vehicle,  date of transfer of vehicle etc.  in order to make necessary changes in his name.   The complainant did not take any steps to transfer the insurance policy by paying requisite fee.    It was not aware that the vehicle was having the  facility of LPG bi-fuel kit to be driven by using  both petrol and LPG gas.    It did not admit the fact that complaint informed about the purchase of vehicle  under certificate of posting dt. 16.11.2010.    Since the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant  he was not entitled to the amount, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9  marked while the  insurance company  filed the affidavit evidence of  its Manager (Legal) and got Ex. B1  & B2  marked. 

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant  had purchased the vehicle on 15.11.2010 and got his name mutated  vide Ex. A2  Form-24 B-Register of Motor  Vehicle.   The factum of  transfer of vehicle was  informed to the insurance company  under  certificate of posting under Ex. A3.   Since a  period of 14 days  was allowed to affect  transfer of policy, and in the light of intimation by the complainant, the insurance company was liable to pay  the amount covered under the policy, and therefore directed the same to be paid to him  with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said  order the  insurance company  preferred the appeal  contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.   The complainant had no insurable interest  over the policy  and therefore he was not entitled to claim the amount.    He did not pay the requisite fee.  It had failed to appreciate the law laid down  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in  1996 (1) ALT page  which has considered  GR-17 of  Indian Motor  Tariff Rules.    Therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed by dismissing the complaint. 

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that Maruthi Omni van belonging to  one  Sunkara Ramakrishna was insured with the appellant insurance company  for a sum of Rs. 1,75,522/- covering the period from  15.6.2010 to 14.6.2011.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle  on 15.11.2010 and got it registered in his name in  Form-24 B- Register  of Motor vehicle vide Ex. A2.   The complainant alleges that  he intimated about the purchase of vehicle to the insurance company under certificate of posting on 16.11.2010 in order  to affect necessary changes in the policy.    On 18.11.2010  the vehicle was burnt vide fire attendance certificate  issued by  Station Fire Officer vide Ex. A4.    The complainant alleges that said fact was also  intimated to the insurance company  and submitted  claim form vide Ex. A6 followed by registered lawyer notice Ex. A7 dt. 29.11.2010 enclosing a photostat copy  of certificate of posting which was received by the appellant insurance company vide acknowledgement Ex. A9.   The insurance company could not dispute  the acknowledgement Ex. A9 as it bears the endorsement  of the officer who had received the  notice.  It was within 13 days of purchase of the vehicle.    No doubt the complainant also filed certificate of posting Ex. A3 wherein  he said to have intimated about the purchase of vehicle and also to affect change of name in the insurance policy.   When the complainant could file the proof  to show that he had sent a letter, necessarily a presumption could be drawn by virtue of Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act.     Admittedly the insurance company did not affect the change of complainant’s name in the policy despite  his request to affect necessary changes in the policy.     Assuming that the letter sent through  Ex. A3 was not received, the fact remains that the insurance company had received  legal notice issued on 29.11.2010 evidenced under Ex. A9 postal acknowledgement of the registered letter. 

9)                 The Dist. Forum relied a passage from the decision of National Commission in  Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company reported in IV (2007) CPJ  289 (NC)   wherein  it was stated

          “As state above the second ground given by the State Commission cannot be justified in view of the India  Motor Tariff Regulation.  Further, on this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced on record the judgement rendered by the Chattisgarh State Commission in the case of Ajimuddin Vs. The New India Assurance Company  Ltd., reported in III (2006) CPJ 273  wherein the Commission has observed in paragraph 7 as under :

          “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that GIC  has issued special instructions regarding settlement of claim in case of transfer of policy.  It was admitted that as per the said instructions the transfer of policy in favour of the purchaser  the complainant/appellant should be treated  as automatic.    It appears that the Tariff Advisory  Committee issued a circular  regarding  automatic transfer  of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle.  In the said circular  the decision of  Supreme Court in  Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., Vs. New India  Assurance Company Ltd., was referred  to.  In the said circular it was stated for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR 10 provisions may be settled  in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy.

          10.     In this view of the matter, the insurance company ought not to have rejected the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the complainant.”

10)              The National Commission in   Madan Singh Vs.  United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)  held that

          Section 157(2) provides that  transferee  shall apply within 14 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 insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy  of insurance in regard to  transfer  of insurance..

          Section 157(2)  of the M.V. Act mandates the insurance company to   affect transfer when  the purchaser requests to do so within 14 days  of its purchase.    The complainant by filing  undisputable documentary evidence proved that  he  had  intimated the purchase of the vehicle  having  got it registered with  transport authorities  vide Ex. A2 informed the same  to the  insurance company  under letter Ex. A3 and subsequently under registered  letter  about the purchase  which was received by the insurance company on 29.11.2010 within 13 days of its purchase.    No doubt within 2 days  of its purchase  the vehicle was damaged.   The fact remains that assuming that  the complainant did not  inform under Ex. A3 still  the complainant had  14 days’ time  to get the insurance policy mutated in his favour.  When the complainant  by filing  documentary evidence proved beyond doubt  that he got issued  registered lawyer notice and applied to the insurance company to effect transfer of policy  there is no reason  why the same should not be believed.    GR-17 is  in conformity with Section 157 (2) of the M.V. Act.   The insurance company  by not affecting the change, committed deficiency in service.   We do not see any mis-appreciation of  fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

11)              In the result the appeal is dismissed  with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-.   Time for compliance four weeks.  

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

13/09/2012        

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”