Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,26,391/- being the amount incurred towards repair of the vehicle bearing No.AP20 AD 7407; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:
The complainant on 13-02-12 purchased the vehicle bearing No.AP20AD7407 from one S. Purnachandra Rao. The said Purnachandra Rao insured the said vehicle for Rs.3,00,000/- with the opposite party covering the period from 26-10-11 to 25-10-12. The complainant on 19-02-12 went Suryalanka beech near Bapatla. Near Chintavaripalem cross road the said vehicle met with an accident and fell into water sump while trying to save a dog running across the road suddenly. None injured in the said accident. The vehicle sustained damage on front portion. Complainant’s brother on 19-02-12 presented a written report to SHO, Bapatla Taluq PS., who conducted enquiry. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the said accident who in turn appointed a surveyor. The complainant was not aware of the contents and recommendations of surveyor. On the oral advice of surveyors the complainant shifted the vehicle from the scene of accident to M/s Jasper Industries, Guntur i.e., the authorized service centre of TATA. The garage people after inspecting the vehicle estimated the repairs at Rs.1,87,532/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,26,391/- on 07-04-12 to M/s Jasper Industries. The complainant after taking delivery of the said vehicle submitted payment receipts, policy along with claim forms including all relevant documents to the opposite party for settlement of the claim. The opposite party issued repudiation letter on 03-07-12 with an observation that the complainant failed to comply with GR.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. The opposite party has to transfer the name of complainant in the policy in place of Purnachandra Rao. The complainant furnished relevant forms to his previous owner for his signatures and consent. The accident referred to above took place within a week of purchase. The insurance policy runs with the vehicle. There were no lapses on the part of the complainant. Repudiation of claim by the opposite party is arbitrary and illegal and amounted to deficiency of service. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:
There is valid policy for the vehicle bearing No. AP20 AD 7407 and it was valid from 26-10-11 to 25-10-12. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant did not get the insurance policy of the said vehicle transferred in his favour and violated Motor Vehicle Rules and as such has no insurable interest. The complainant has not submitted a) specific request for transfer of insurance, b) consent of transferor, c) fresh proposal, d) surrender of insurance policy in original within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the RC. The opposite party under those circumstances is unable to entertain the claim. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service. The complaint be dismissed.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-10 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of the complainant and opposite party were marked respectively.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:
- Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- To what relief?
6. Admitted facts in this complaint are:
a. One S. Purnachandra Rao was owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 20 AD 7047 (Ex.A-2).
b. The said Purnachandra Rao obtained insurance policy for Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite party covering the period from 26-10-11 to 25-10-12 (Ex.A-1=B1).
c. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the said Purnachandra Rao (Ex.A-3).
d. The said vehicle on 19-02-12 met with an accident near Chintavaripalem cross road on Bapatla-Suryalanka road, one T. Dilip Kumar set the criminal law into motion by giving report to the SHO, Bapatla Taluq PS (Ex.A-4).
e. The complainant submitted claim form on 27-02-12 to the opposite party (Ex.A-8).
f. The opposite party appointed one V. Balaji as surveyor to assess the loss who in turn submitted his report (Ex.B-2).
g. The opposite party on 03-07-12 informed the complainant about its inability to entertain the claim for not complying GR.17 of Indian Motor Tariff (Ex.A-10).
7. POINT No.1:- The opposite party on 03-07-12 (Ex.A-10) addressed a letter to the complainant and it reads as follows:
“Further to our earlier letter dt.12/06/20112 on the above, we wish to inform you that the competent authority has decided to deny our liability on the following ground:
‘you have not complied with G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff Amended upto 2012’ i.e., the following documents not submitted within 14 days from the date of transfer in RC.
- Specific request for transfer of insurance
- Consent of transferor
- Fresh proposal
- Surrender of insurance policy in original etc.,
In view of the above, we are unable to entertain the claim and hence, made as “NO CLAIM”.
8. Section 157 of MV Act deals with transfer of certificate of insurance and it reads as follows:
“(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”.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant failed to comply General Regulation 17 of Indian Motor Tariff Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the above regulations are prospective in nature and the opposite party did not mention when those regulations came into force. The opposite party relied on the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Chandrakanth Bhujanga Rao Jogdand 2010 (2) CPJ 170 (NC) decided on 17-06-2009 wherein it was held that the complainant is not entitled to the sum insured since on the date of accident the insurance policy had not been transferred in favour of the complainant and it stood in the name of the previous owner and accordingly the complainant had no insurable interest under the said policy and set aside the orders of the Fora below holding that they suffered from illegality.
10. The scope of Section 157 of MV Act vis-à-vis insurance liability as against third party and own damage was discussed by the Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 1996 (1) SCC 221 and laid down that the deemed transfer u/s 157 of the M.V. Act is restricted to third party risks and does not apply to other risks like damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself which falls outside Chapter XI of the new Act.
11. The contention of the complainant that General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act being prospective in force is justified. The opposite party did not file any notification when General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff Act came into force. But in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Chandrakanth Bhujanga Rao Jogdand 2010 (2) CPJ 170 (NC) while dealing with the above regulation it was observed that the General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff came into existence from 01-07-2002.
12. GR.17 dealing with Transfers is extracted below for better appreciation:
On transfer of ownership, the Liability Only cover, either under a Liability Only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
In case of Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.
A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies.
Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed. The old Certificate of Insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason, the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued”.
13. In his complaint and affidavit the complainant mentioned “The opposite party having the valid policy for the vehicle and I needs some time for transfer the name on the policy from the old owner to the present owner. I furnished relevant forms to the previous owner for his signatures and his consent. In the meantime i.e., within one week from the date of purchase the accident was occurred”. The above averments revealed that the complaint is aware of Section 157 of MV Act and GR.17 of Indian Motor Tariff Act.
14. The complainant on 27-02-12 submitted claim application to the opposite party which received it on the even day (Ex.A-8). In Ex.A-8 the name of the insured was shown as T. Uday Kumar and period of insurance as 26-10-11 to 25-10-12. Even in Ex.A-8 also the complainant did not mention correct name of the insured. It is not the case of the complainant that he submitted relevant forms to the opposite party for mutating his name in insurance policy. If his vendor did not respond for the genuine request it cannot be said that the opposite party committed deficiency of service.
15. Can the previous owner claim insured amount in this case as the accident took place within a week after purchase and where no mutation took place in insurance policy. Such question arose in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sri Divya Prashad 2011 (1) CPR 119 (NC) where in it was held that previous owner also could not claim insurance policy when once sold his vehicle and mutation was effected in registration certificate.
16. By mentioning incorrect particulars the complainant denied the opposite party of bringing him to his notice the steps which he should take to claim the amount incurred for effecting repairs. In view of the above discussion, we therefore opine that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service in repudiating the claim vide Ex.A-10. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
17. POINT No.2:- In view of our findings on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any damages. We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.
18. POINT No.3:- 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 8th day of February, 2013.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.No | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 25-10-11 | Copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule |
A2 | - | Copy of C-book of previous owner |
A3 | - | Copy of C-book of present owner i.e., the complainant |
A4 | - | Copy of police certificate |
A5 | 24-02-12 | Copy of estimation of repairs |
A6 | 07-04-12 | Copy of payment receipt |
A7 | 07-02-12 | Copy of payment receipt |
A8 | 27-02-12 | Copy of claim intimation letter |
A9 | 15-03-12 | Copy of supplementary estimation letter |
A10 | 03-07-12 | Repudiation letter |
For opposite party:
Ex.No | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
B1 | 26-10-11 | Certificate of insurance |
B2 | - | Copy of surveyor report |
B3 | - | Copy of endorsement of GR.17 Transfers |
PRESIDENT
NB: The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.
