BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.28/2017 

          Date of filing: 18/04/2017

            Date of disposal: 13/12/2018

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “OP”) directed the OP to pay Rs.66,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainants from 30.01.2017 till realization and pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          The complainant No.1 is the father of the Complainant No.2 and the complainant No.1 is the owner of the vehicle No.KA.43/M-5516 on dtd:12.12.2016 and complainant No.2 is the owner of the vehicle before 12.12.2016 and he has purchased the vehicle insurance of OP which enforce for the period of 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017 and further the complainant No.1 has transferred the ownership of the above said vehicle in the name of complainant No.1 on 12.12.2016 and further on dtd: 30.01.2017 near Mantoor Cross, the above said vehicle got totally damaged and stand in the scrap condition and the FIR and complaint has been registered as Raybag P.S. Crime No.28/2017 and the Complainant No.1 & 2 had submitted all the documents before the OP office at Jamakhandi and on dtd: 01.03.2017, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainants with reason that, the insured policy is purchased by Complainant No.2, but the ownership of the vehicle stands in the name of Complainant No.1 and the policy No.2410013116P106316322 was not transferred in the name of new owner and there is a delay of 49 days.

          It is further contended that, as per the insurance Act and policy, there must be an insurable interest for the policy holders and in this case, the Complainant No.2 i.e. son has transferred the ownership of the vehicle, but not transferred the vehicle insurance policy is not a serious offence as the insurable interest from father to son and son to father is admissible and they are entitle for claim for total loss of Rs.3,00,000/- the insured declared value by the OP as per their vehicle policy and further the complainant had furnished all the original documents required for the insurance claim before OP and further the complainant on several occasions requested the OP insurance company to settle his claim, but he did not settle the claim one or the other pretext. The opponent has repudiated the claim of the complainant, even though; the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. The opponent committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicle’s Act and insurance Act and thereby committed the deficiency in service towards the complainants.  Hence, the complainants are constrained to file this complaint.

3.      After receipt of said notice to the Opponent, the Op has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant that, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complaint of the complainant does not fall under the provisions of the C.P. Act and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

          It is further contended that, the complainants are violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy, as per the terms and condition of the policy, insured must have insurable interest, in other words insured must be the registered owner of the vehicle, in case of transfer of ownership, the vehicle transferee be shall apply for transfer the policy within 14 days from the date of transfer R.C. to the company, so that necessary changes of the ownership is recorded in the policy by the company and issue fresh certificate of insurance if this is not done within stipulated period claims if any may become inadmissible. 

OP further contended that, the complainant No.2 is the insurer of the above said vehicle and OP admitted that, the insured vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant No.1, but transferee was failed to apply for transfer of policy and further on dtd: 30.01.2017 the above said vehicle met with an accident and got totally damaged and stand in scarp condition, etc are not correct and specifically denied by this OP and further contended that, the accident in question has been occurred between motor cycle and insured car and hence obviously impact on car will be less. The estimate cost of repair of vehicle is Rs.81,926/- (Labour charges Rs.28,566/- and Cost of Parts is Rs.53,360/-). After receipt of estimate and claim form, the OP has appointed independent surveyor for inspect the loss assessment and given report to the OP/Company, the surveyor has inspected the spot and given survey report that, the net loss assessed is Rs.37,777/-Therefore liability of the company is limited to Rs.37,777/- if the claim is payable, but there is a violation of the policy condition i.e. policy was not transferred to transferee, the insured have no insurable interest. Hence, OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. Hence, the O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.

4.      The complainant No.1 has filed his chief affidavit along with documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 in support of his case. The documents are as follows;

On the other hand OP has filed his affidavit on behalf of his case and produced 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 & R-2 are as follows;

5.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows;

Our findings to the above points are as under;

1.  In the Negative.

2. As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

6.    POINT NO.1:  After perusing the both pleadings and evidence of parties and documents on record. It is admitted fact that, the Complainant No.2 Santosh B. Danatti being  the owner of the Tata Motors & Vista Tech LX TDI BS car bearing vehicle No.KA-48/M-5516 and obtained the insurance policy in his name which is valid from 12-08-2016 to mid night 11-08-2017 which is marked as Ex.R-2. The case of the complainants are that, the Complainant No.1 specifically states that, the complainant No.1 & 2 are the father and son and the son has transferred the ownership of the vehicle in his father name i.e. complainant No.1. But surprisingly the policy has been obtained in the name of son i.e. complainant No.2 Santosh B. Danatti valid from 12-08-2016 to 11-08-2017 after purchasing the vehicle. As per the contentions of the Complainants still the policy remained in the name of son i.e. complainant No.2 Santosh B. Danatti. But, the complainant No.1 has failed to prove or placed any documents to show that, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Complainant No.1. The complainant No.1 did not care to get the insurance policy transferring the vehicle in the name of Complainant No.1 on a particular date not disclosed either in the Complaint or in the affidavit. Therefore, in our consider view, the complainant No.1 has failed to substantiate with cogent and material documents and acceptable affidavit evidence as such the case as alleged in the complaint and further he has not substantiate Whether the transferee has got insurable interest in policy as per terms and conditions of the policy. 

The case of the OP is that, as per the provisions of U/s 157 of the M.V. Act and the rules made their under the policy has to be transferred in the name of transferee. It is the bounden duty of the transferee to submit fresh proposal form duly filed and signed and by surrendering old policy. In terms of the regulation the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer from making necessary changes for issuing fresh certificate of insurance.

 It is un-disputed that, the vehicle in question met with an accident and damages has been claimed under the head of own damages. Of course, the vehicle met with an accident on 30-01-2017 after transferred the ownership of the vehicle in his father i.e. complainant No.1 and the policy was renewed and valid till mid night 11.08.2017 standing in the name of complainant No.2 i.e. Santosh B Danatti.  Here in the instant case it is not know why the Complainant No.1 kept quite without getting insurance certificate in his name from the date of transferred the ownership. Nevertheless, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant No.1 to get it transfer the insurance policy in his name. But the policy placed on record stands in the name Santosh B. Danatti, i.e. complainant No.2 who is the insured and valid from 12-08-2016 to 11-08-2017. Still the insurance policy was not at all issued in the name of Complainant No.1 either on the date of filing the Complaint or any subsequent date. For that proposition of law, we would like to refer a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586. It has been held by the N.C. and Hon’ble S.C. that, in respect of own damages claim; it is the duty of the transferee to get it transfer the policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer. Here in the instant case, the Complainant No.1 has not explained any reasons as to why, he could not get the transfer policy in his name within 14 days or till the date of filing the Complaint. In the light of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that, the OP justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainants. Therefore, repudiation made by the opponent is justified and proper and it is not an amount of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainants and further that, the opponent is not guilty of deficiency in service. The repudiation of the claim is just and proper. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.

7.      POINT NO.2:- After careful consideration and our findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainants U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

No order as to costs. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this 13^th day of December, 2018).