BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
APPEAL No.945/2014
Future General India Insurance
Co. Ltd, Rept. By its Authorized
Signatory, Pasadena, No.18/1,
(Old No.125/A), ... Appellant/s
3rd Floor, Ashoka Pillar Road,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru – 560 082
(By Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)
-V/s-
1. Sri.Vijayaraj.N.C.
S/o N.Chikka,
Aged about 26 years,
R/near Port Banglow Road,
Gangolli, Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District – 576 216
… Respondent/s
2. Mr.Sheikh Abdul,
S/o Moideen,
Residing at Bharat Nagar,
Kolya, Kaup,
Udupi District
(R1-By Sri.Manmohan.P.N, Advocate)
(R2-Dispensed)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Dakshina Kannada in CC.No.349/2011 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had purchased a goods carrying vehicle “TATA SFC 407/31” bearing Reg.No.KA-47-1706 through Sri Ram Auto Mall India Ltd on 15-7-2010 by paying a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. After purchase of the said vehicle with prescribed time the complainant applied for transfer of registration certificate in his name by paying necessary fees on 15-7-2010 to RTO, Udupi. The previous owner of the said vehicle i.e. Opposite Party No.2 who insured the said vehicle with Sriram General Insurance Company for the period from 23-7-2009 to 22-7-2010 for Rs.4,00,000/- since the insurance policy to be lapsed and hence the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 by submitting all the necessary documents to insure the said vehicle in his name. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to insure the vehicle and issued the cover note No.C0422922 stating that vehicle was insured for the period from 22-7-2010 to 21-7-2011 and promised to issue the policy in the complainant’s name after transfer of Registration certificate of the said vehicle. After transfer of the registration certificate of the said vehicle, the complainant had submitted the copy of the RC to Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 had not issue the policy to the complainant. Unfortunately within a month after the purchase i.e.19-8-2010 the complainant’s vehicle had met with an accident and suffered total loss and immediately complainant informed the same and the repairer of the said vehicle estimated the cost of the repair which is more than the insured amount. The complainant submitted all the necessary documents, but the Opposite Parties failed to comply the claim. Hence, the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. Version notice served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by RPAD. Opposite Party No.2 in spite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case. Hence, the District Commission has proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2.
4. Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Future General Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared through their counsel filed version admitted the policy but contended that Opposite Party No.2 Sheikh Abdulla insured the subject vehicle with Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., from 23-7-2009 to 22-7-2010 but the said insurance policy stood in the name of Vinayaka J.Naik S/o Jetti Naik. The complainant had no business of deal with this Opposite Party since he is a stranger to the transactions. Further submitted that the cover note was issued in the name of Opposite Party No.2 based on the previous documents from Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. But it was later revealed that Registration Certificate was transferred but previous policy was not transferred in his name and also contended that the vehicle was in inspected it was not in road worthy condition to issue policy and hence the proposal was declined and cover note was cancelled and the same was communicated to Opposite Party No.2 as per registered notice dated 2-9-2010 and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. After trial, the District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint in part.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal on various grounds.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and materials on records, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased a goods carrying vehicle “TATA SFC 407/31” bearing Reg.No.KA-47-1706 through Shriram Auto Mall India Ltd., on 15-7-2010 by paying a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. It is also not in dispute that, the previous owner i.e. respondent No.2 of the said vehicle who insured the said vehicle with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, Jaipur, Rajasthan for the period from 23-7-2009 to 22-7-2010 for Rs.4,00,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had applied for transfer of registration certificate i.e. RC in his name by paying necessary fees on 19-7-2010 at RTO, Udupi. It is also not in dispute that insurance policy was about to be lapsed on 22-7-2011, the complainant approached the appellant to insure the said vehicle in his name by submitting all the necessary documents and the appellant had issued a cover note No.C0422922 stating that the vehicle was insured for the period from 22-7-2010 to 21-7-2011. It is also not in dispute that the above said vehicle was met with an accident and suffered total loss on 19-8-2010.
9. The allegation of respondent/complainant is that the vehicle purchased by him was duly insured by the respondent No.2 and the appellant had issued cover note for the said vehicle in the name of respondent No.2 on the basis of previous policy issued by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd in the name of respondent No.1 and after accident of the vehicle in question the appellant had submitted all the documents to the appellant, however the appellant had failed to settle the claim of the respondent No.1 without any reasons.
10. Per-contra, the appellant contended that on scrutinized the proposal form and other documents submitted by the respondent No.2, the registration certificate was transferred but the policy was not transferred in the name of respondent No.1 and once the vehicle was transferred in favour of purchaser, insurance company is not liable to transferee of the vehicle because the transferee were not having insurable interest.
11. Perused the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that it is an evident that Ex.C6 after purchasing the vehicle from the respondent No.2, previous owner of the vehicle the respondent No.1 applied for transfer of registration certificate in his name by paying necessary fees on 19-7-2010 to RTO, Udupi. Means the respondent No.1 approached for registration of the vehicle to RTO, Udupi without any delay. However the vehicle in question was met an accident on 19-8-2010 and damaged fully. As per the Section 157 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
“157. 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. 1[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”.
That is transfer of ownership application is to be made within a period of 14 days and in present case the respondent No.1 has applied for registration certificate on 19-7-2010 by paying necessary fees, only after 04 days of purchasing the vehicle in question. Hence, it is not just and proper to reject the claim of the respondent No.1 by the appellant. Moreover the respondent No.1 has approached the appellant and the appellant has issued cover note No.C0422922 stating that the vehicle was insured for the period from 22-7-2010 to 21-7-2011. Moreover, the claim made by the respondent No.1 is related to the vehicle damage and not the third party claim. If the vehicle is met with an accident and suffered total loss, as per the Motor Vehicle Act Section 157, the respondent No.1 has approached the RTO for registration and paid necessary fees to transfer the ownership, the appellant insurance company cannot discharge their liability on flimsy grounds. There is no any negligence on the part of the respondent No.1.
12. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the respondent No.1 is entitled for the benefits under the policy of the vehicle. Hence, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
