This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 23-04-12 in the presence of Sri.L.Ankamma Chowdary, advocate for the complainant and of Sri.V.Nageswara Rao, advocate for 2nd opposite and 1st opposite party is set exparte, 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 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.6,00,000/- being insured amount, Rs.1,82,000/- being interest @24% p.a. from 15-07-2010 to 20/10/2011 and Rs.1,00,000/- as punitive damages and Rs.8,82,000/- as a compensation for mental agony from the 2nd opposite party.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are hereunder:
The complainant purchased Oil Tanker bearing No.AP16 TX 1519 from the 1st respondent being owner. The 1st respondent insured the vehicle with the 2nd respondent vide policy bearing NO. 551502/31/09/6300001879. The said policy was in force from 15-12-2009 to 14-12-2010. The vehicle was transferred in favour of the complainant on 24-12-2009 and thus became owner of the said vehicle from 24-12-2009. On 15-07-2010 the complainant parked the said vehicle in front of Uma Maheswarareddy I.O.C. Petrol Bunk in Tenali. On 15-07-2010 some unknown offenders committed theft of the said vehicle. The complainant searched for his Oil Tanker for two days and gave report to the S.H.O.,Mangalagiri P.S. (T) and it was registered as Crime No. 111/10 under section 379 of I.P.C. The concerned police referred the said crime as undetectable on 31-07-2011 and served notice to the complainant on 04-08-2011. On 06-12-2010 the complainant submitted the claim with all relevant documents to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on 22-11-10 repudiated claim with out any justification. The Insurance policy deemed to have been transferred along with the vehicle after its purchase. Rejecting the claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency of service. The said act of the opposite party caused mental, physical agony and the complainant estimated the damages @Rs.8, 82,000/-
3. The 2nd opposite party resisted the claim of the complaint contending that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as not applied for transfer of policy with 14 days as required under law, the final report of police dated 16-08-11 was undetectable and repudiated the claim on 22-09-2011, and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The 1st opposite party remained exparte. Ex.A-1 to A-8 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 on behalf of 2nd opposite party were marked respectively.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:
1. Whether the repudiation of the claim by the 2nd opposite
Party is justifiable?
2. Whether the 2nd 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 became owner of the vehicle bearing No.
AP16TX 1519 from 24-12-2009 (Ex.A-1 & A7).
(b). The 1st opposite party insured the vehicle with the 2nd
Opposite party for Rs.6, 00,000/- (Ex.A-2) and it was valid
from 15-12-2009 to 14/12/2010 (Ex.A-2). The
complainant gave report to the police on 16-07-2010
regarding missing of his vehicle on 15-07-10(Ex.A-3)
(c). The S.H.O Mangalagiri police station (T) referred Crime No.
111/10 registered under section 379 IPS as undetectable
(Ex.A-5 & A-6).
(d). The complainant on 06-12-2010 submitted the claim to the
2nd respondent (Ex.A-7)
(e). The 2nd opposite party repudiated claim on 22-09-2011.
7. POINT NOs. 1&2 :- The complainant in para 9 of this complaint mentioned as followed infra:
“I further submit that the said vehicle was validly insured by 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. I enter into the shoes of the 1st respondent, as the 1st respondent insured the said vehicle to the 2nd respondent. I further submit that the said insurance is transited along with vehicle from 1st respondent to me”
The above averments in the complaint lead us to infer that the insurance policy pertaining to subject vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant.
8. Now the question before this Forum is whether such untransfered insurance policy will endure benefit to the complainant.
9. The learned counsel for the 2nd 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 the complainant has no locus standi
to file this complaint and repudiation by the 2nd opposite party is justified. We therefore answer these points against the complainant.
16. POINT NO. 3: In view of the above findings, in the result the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
17. POINT NO. 5: 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 30th day of April, 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 24-12-09 | Certificate of registration. |
A2 | 14-12-09 | Insurance policy bond. |
A3 | 23-12-09 | Form – 38, Certificate of Fitness. |
A4 | 16-07-10 | Copy of First Information Report. |
A5 | 31-07-11 | Notice to the complainant (form 70) |
A6 | 16-08-11 | Case Dairy. |
A7 | 06-12-10 | Xerox copy of Motor Claim Form |
A8 | 22-09-11 | Letter issued by 2nd respondent to complainant. |
For 2nd opposite party :
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | 18-04-11 | Investigation Report. |
PRESIDENT
