Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/71/2016

Prabhakara Reddy S/o Chandranna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.M.S.Mallikarjuna

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:20.07.2016

DISPOSED      ON:15.02.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 71/2016

 

DATED:  15^th FEBRUARY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

……COMPLAINANT	Prabhakara Reddy, S/o Chandranna, Age: 60 Years, R.C Owner of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-04 ME-7870, R/o Maradihalli Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga.        (Rep by Sri. H. Haleshappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Opp: Nanjundeshwara Petrol Bunk, Davanagere Road, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Arun Kumar, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,41,000/- with interest at 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant is the RC owner of Car bearing Reg. No.  KA-04 ME-7870 and the same was insured with OP under policy No.31260000/31/14/01/02235475 valid for the period from 28.12.2014 to 27.15.2015.  It is further submitted that, on 27.11.2015 at about 5-30 PAM, the drive by name Suhail was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and suddenly turn the car on left side and hit to a road divider and the same was toppled down near Krishna Lodge, NH-4 Service road, near National Hotel, Chitradurga and the car was fully damaged.  After the said accident, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Traffic Police Station, Chitradurga.  The said Police has registered a case against the driver in Crime No.64/7178/122202 u/Sec. 184 of IMV Act.  On 01.12.2015, the complainant gave an intimation to the OP along with Xerox copies of the RC, Police Papers, DL and Claim Form.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has left his car in Authorized Service Center ESSARR Automotives, No.7, NH-13, Pillekaranahally, Chitradurga for repair and the said car was repaired.  The total repair charge is of Rs.1,41,000/-.  The complainant submitted the bills to the OP on 29.03.2016 for settlement.  It is further submitted that, after that, the complainant has visited the number times to the OP office for settlement of claim but, OP never settled the claim of the complainant.  Finally, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, as on the date of accident, the vehicle was stands in the name of complainant but, the insurance policy is in the name of one Mr. D. Ramesh Babu and the same is intimated to the complainant on 10.05.2016.  The repudiation of the OP is without any valid reasons and it is not proper, they have not acted like prudent man.  The complainant has also suffered from mental agony and loss which cannot be measured in terms of money.  Hence, the attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  It is further submitted that, the cause of action arise for the complaint was on 27.11.2015 when the date of accident and also on subsequent dates on 01.12.2015, the complainant intimated to the OP on 29.03.2013, the submission of repair bills by that time, the OP has repudiated the claim.  The jurisdiction of the complaint the OP has been doing their business in Chitradurga and they have got office at Chitradurga which comes within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for allowing the appeal.    

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Arun Kumar, Advocate and filed version admitting about the complainant is the RC owner of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04 ME-7870.  Further, it is denied by the OP that, the complainant is not the policy holder of the said vehicle and he has not insured his vehicle with the OP.  The OP has not issued any policy to the complainant.  The complainant is no way concerned to the OP.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in para No.3 that, the driver who driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner was not having valid DL to drive the same.  Hence, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant towards damage caused to the vehicle.  The allegations made in para 4 and 5 of the complainant are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  Further the allegations made in para No.5 of the complaint that, the complainant left his car for repair before the ESSARR Service Center, Chitradurga and get it repaired cost of Rs.1,41,000/- and submit the same before the OP are all denied as false.  The allegations made in para 6 of the complaint that, the complainant has visited the OP office several times for settlement of the claim are all false.  The OP finally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, as on the date of accident, the vehicle stands in the name of complainant but, the policy was stands in the name of one D. Ramesh Babu and the same has been intimated to the complainant on 10.05.2016 is true.  Further allegations made in para 6 of the complaint are denied as false and strict to proof of the same.  There is no cause of action as alleged in para 7 of the complaint.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the real facts of the case.  Further the complainant filed this complaint against the OP is devoid of merits and there is no merits in the same.  It is further submitted that, the OP submitted that, the RC of the said vehicle is standing in the name of complainant but, he is not the policy holder.  The policy of insurance was not transferred in the name of present complaint.  The complainant has not made any efforts to transfer the insurance policy of the said vehicle in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC.  Hence, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were got marked. On behalf of OP, one Sri. Nagaraju. K, Divisional Manager has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 and    B-2 documents have been got marked.   

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim made by him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of Car bearing Reg. No.  KA-04 ME-7870 and the same was insured with OP under policy No.31260000/31/14/01/02235475 valid for the period from 28.12.2014 to 27.15.2015.  On 27.11.2015 at about 5-30 PAM, the set car met with an accident due to rash and negligent manner of the driver and the same was toppled down near Krishna Lodge, NH-4 Service road, near National Hotel, Chitradurga and fully damaged.  Complainant lodged a complaint before the Traffic Police Station, Chitradurga and the Police registered a case against the driver in Crime No.64/7178/122202 u/Sec. 184 of IMV Act.   It is further argued that, on 01.12.2015, the complainant gave an intimation to the OP along with Xerox copies of the RC, Police Papers, DL and Claim Form.  Thereafter, the complainant has left his car with the ESSARR Automotives, Chitradurga for repairs and the said car was repaired by spending Rs.1,41,000/- and submitted the bills to the OP on 29.03.2016 for settlement.  Complainant has visited the number times to the OP office for settlement of claim but, OP never settled the claim of the complainant.  Finally, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, as on the date of accident, the vehicle was stands in the name of complainant but, the insurance policy is in the name of one Mr. D. Ramesh Babu and the same is intimated to the complainant on 10.05.2016 and it is not proper.  The OPs have not acted like prudent man, for which the complainant has also suffered from mental agony and loss which cannot be measured in terms of money. 

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Certificate Cum Policy Schedule marked as Ex.A-1, Counter Sale Retail Cash Memo marked as Ex. A-2 and repudiation letter dated 10.05.2016 marked as Ex.A-3.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP that, the complainant is the RC owner of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04 ME-7870.  But, it is denied that, the complainant is not the policy holder of the said vehicle and he has not insured his vehicle with the OP.  The OP has not issued any policy in the name of complainant and he is no way concerned to the OP, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.  It is further argued that, the driver who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident was not having valid DL to drive the same. Hence, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant towards damage caused to the vehicle.  It is further argued and denied that, the complainant left his car for repair before the ESSARR Service Center, Chitradurga and submit the bills towards repair charges to the OP.  Further it is argued that, the complainant has visited the OP office several times for settlement of the claim are all false.  The OP finally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, “As on the date of accident, the vehicle stands in the name of complainant but, the policy was stands in the name of one D. Ramesh Babu” and the same has been intimated to the complainant on 10.05.2016.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the real facts of the case.  Further the complainant filed this complaint against the OP is devoid of merits and there is no merits in the same.  The OP argued that, the RC of the said vehicle stands in the name of complainant but, he is not the policy holder.  The policy of insurance was not transferred in the name of present complaint.  The complainant has not made any efforts to transfer the insurance policy of the said vehicle in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC.  Hence, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.               

11.    In support of its contention, the OP has filed affidavit evidence of its Nagaraju.K, Divisional Manager and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like Policy Schedule Cum Certificate marked as Ex.B-1 and B-Register extract of Prabhakareddy marked as Ex.B-2.         

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant is the RC owner of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04 ME-7870 and the same was insured with the OP for the period from 28.12.2014 to 27.12.2015 under Policy No.312600/31/14/01022354.  The said car met with an accident on 27.11.2015 at about 5-30 AM near Krishna Lodge, NH-4 Service Road, Near National Hotel, Chitradurga and fully damaged.  Complaint has been lodged before the Traffic Police, Chitradurga against the driver in Crime No.64/7178/122202 u/Sec. 184 of IMV Act and on 01.12.2015, the complainant gave an intimation to the OP along with Xerox copies of the RC, Police Papers, DL and Claim Form.  The car was left for repair in Authorized Service Center ESSARR Automotives, Chitradurga and the total repair charge of Rs.1,41,000/-.  The complainant submitted the bills to the OP on 29.03.2016 for settlement, and he has visited number times to the OP office for settlement of claim but, OP never settled the claim of the complainant.  Finally, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, “As on the date of accident, the vehicle was stands in the name of complainant but, the insurance policy is in the name of one Mr. D. Ramesh Babu”.  It is pertinent to note that, when the RC was transferred in the name of complainant, his duty is to transfer the policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC.  But, in this case, after the transfer of RC, the policy has not been transferred in the name of RC owner.  In a decision reported in II (2016) CPJ 678 (NC) in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Rakhwant Singh, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Insurance Accident of vehicle – Ownership transferred – Policy not transferred – Insurable interest disputed – Claim repudiated – Deficiency of service alleged – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission partly allowed Appeal – Hence revision – Policy was issued in name of Dr. Sunita – Later on vehicle was purchased by complainant before accident but insurance policy had not been transferred – complainant having failed to get insurance policy transferred in his name is not entitled to claim compensation on account of loss to vehicle due to accident – Orders passed by both for a are set aside.   

 

The above decision is helpful to the case of the OP.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the OP.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as Negative.  

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

It is ordered that, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 15/02/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Nagaraju. K, Divisional Manager of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Certificate Cum Policy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Counter Sale Retail Cash Memo
03	Ex-A-3:-	Repudiation Letter to complainant by OP

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Policy Schedule Cum Certificate
02	Ex-B-2:-	B-Register Extract

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**