This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 01-03-12 in the presence of Sri G. Santha Kumar, advocate for the complainant and of Sri P. Kishore, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,61,100/- together with interest @24% p.a., from the date of accident; Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant obtained vehicle insurance policy bearing No.417055/31/11/007268 on 11-11-10 for his vehicle bearing                    No. AP 10V 5557.   The vehicle met with an accident on 20-11-10.   The surveyor conducted survey and found the damage of the vehicle at Rs.1,61,100/- vide his report dated 21-11-10.    On 09-04-11 the opposite party repudiated the claim with frivolous reasons. The repudiation of complainant’s claim amounted to deficiency of service.    On account of such attitude the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and spent lot of money towards repair of vehicle.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

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

        The complainant is not the registered owner of the vehicle                  AP 10V 5557 on the date of accident.    One Jani Basha SK                         S/o. Mastan, R/o Piduguralla was the registered owner of the vehicle w.e.f. 16-11-10.   The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.   Neither the complainant nor the transferee of the vehicle intimated about change of ownership of the vehicle.   The complainant did not mention as to how the vehicle met with accident.   The vehicle ought to have been kept at the place of accident till inspection by the concerned staff of the opposite party. After information of the alleged accident the opposite party appointed an investigator and found that the said vehicle was not at all involved in an accident.  The complainant concealed the relevant facts and as such the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

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

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

        1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,61,100/-?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so          to what amount?

5. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:-  The complainant obtaining insurance policy from the opposite party for his vehicle bearing No. AP 10V 5557 (Ex.A-3) is not in dispute.   The opposite party appointing a surveyor to inspect the vehicle involved in accident is also not in dispute.  The affidavit as well as the complaint revealed that the vehicle met with an accident on 20-11-10.   Ex.A-2 (copy of certificate of registration) revealed that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle AP 10V 5557.   But       Ex.A-3 (copy of certificate of registration) revealed that Jani Basha SK became owner of the vehicle w.e.f. 16-11-10.   Ex.A-3 corroborated the contention of the opposite party that the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident.   To rebut it the complainant filed chief affidavit of the said Jani Basha into this Forum on 01-03-12 to the effect that he purchased the vehicle AP 10V 5557 from the complainant with the consent of the financier Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited and the said company made transfer of ownership in the office of RTO, Narasaraopet on 16-11-10, did not pay sale consideration to the complainant, at the time of accident the vehicle was in the possession of the complainant and has no objection to pay the claim amount to the complainant.   The above averments did not find place either in the complaint or in the chief affidavit of the complainant filed on 20-01-12. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the affidavit of the transferee was pressed into service with false averments at a later stage is having considerable force.  Delivery of movable properties can be affected by delivery of possession irrespective of passing of consideration.  In this case the transport authorities also effected change of ownership in their records.   Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not an owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident is well founded by the documents filed by the complainant himself.   We therefore opine that the complainant is not a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

7.  POINT No.2:-      The repudiation of claim by the opposite party on 09-04-11 (Ex.A-1) is not in dispute.   It is not the case of the complainant or the transferee of the vehicle that they have intimated the change of ownership to the opposite party either in writing or orally.   In view of findings on point No.1 we answer this point also against the complainant. 

8.  POINTS 3&4:-     To prove his claim for Rs.1,61,100/- the complainant relied on Ex.A-4 i.e., claim cost confirmation.   Ex.A-4 did not contain the signature of surveyor who gave it.   Under those circumstances no reliance can be placed on Ex.A-4 as rightly contended by the opposite party.  The complainant in para III (g) mentioned that he spent lot of money towards repairs of the vehicle and thereby suffered financial struggles.  The complaint did not file any document to show the amount he incurred in getting the vehicle repaired.   In view of our findings on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any amount much less Rs.1,61,100/- and any amount towards compensation.   We therefore answer these points against the complainant.

9.  POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7^th day of March, 2012.

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: 

                                                                                                        PRESIDENT