Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/64/2020

Satish.S S/o Srinivisa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Universal Sompo General Insurance company ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Jagadeesh

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:09/10/2020

DISPOSED ON:01/08/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:64/2020

DATED: 01^st  AUGUST 2023

 

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT/s	Sri Sathish.S,     S/o Srinivasa,     Aged about 56 Years,     Owner of Innova Crysta 2.4th       Vehical bearing R.C.No. KA-16-C-6667,     Behind Budamma Temple Behind,           Karuvinakatte Circle,     Chitradurga City.          (Rep by Sri R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTIE/S	The Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Com. Ltd., Branch Office at 3rd Floor, K.V.V. Samrat, 217/A, 3rd Main, Outer Ring Road, Kasturinagara, Bangaluru-560 043.            (Rep by Sri K.Mohan Bhat, Advocate)   Raghunatha, The then agent of the said Insurance Company Now Working at Reliance General Insurance Company Branch Office at Jagaluru Mahalingappa Tower B.D.Road, Chitradurga City Mob: 9379096442.

 

::ORDER::

 

By Smt. B.H.YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

       

         The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of consumer protection Act 1986 for seeking the reliefs to direct the OP No.1 to settle pay the claim / damage amount of Rs.3,80,000/- in respect of repair and replacement charges which the insured as incurred in respect of the said vehicle and to grant compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-towards mental agony, loss of income and grant compensation of amount of Rs.10,000/- and also prays this to direct the opponent to pay interest at 18% from the date of accident on the said amounts claimed till date of deposit and grant such other necessary reliefs as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit under circumstances of the case by allowing complaint in the interest of equity and justice.

 

    2. The Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

 

The opponents are very well known about the facts that, Mr.Dhananjaya.R S/o Ramu.R was the previous owner of the said innova vehicle, who had got insured / renewed the policy of said vehicle through opponent No.2 with the opponent No.1, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., having branch office at Bangalore, through the opponent No.2 who was then agent of the opponent No.1, covering all risk, hence the opponent No.1 had issued comprehensive policy bearing No.2314/5944/2931/00/000, by collecting maximum insurance policy amount covering all sorts of risk and the said policy was valid from 13.58 of 04/02/2019 to midnight of 03/02/2020.  In the meanwhile, the said previous owner Dhananjaya.R had sold the said vehicle to the complainant on 28/01/2019 soon after the purchase of the said vehicle from the previous owner Dhananjaya.R to the present owner, who is the complainant as per law, procedure policy and IMV Act, all necessary information along documents have been submitted intimated / informed to the opponent No.1 and also to the R.T.O. Chitradurga, to transfer the R.C of the said vehicle and also to transfer /renew the insurance policy from the name of the previous owner to the present owner Satish.S.

 

        3. After purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant from his said previous owner, the said vehicle met with an accident on 09/11/2019, near Iyyappaswamy temple, Medehalli Road, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, within the jurisdiction of Rural Police Station, immediately the information about the accident also intimated to the opponents and necessary all concerned authorities, further the complainant of the said vehicle by name Sathish.S had claimed the insurance in respect of his said vehicle involved in the accident for damages as per law.  After survey by the technical persons and also submitted the claim form in accordance with law.  But the opponent rejected the claim for the reasons cited in a claim rejection letter dated:31/12/2019 in claim No.CLI9992316, policy No:2314/5944/2331/00/000, without any valid, acceptable reasons and facts by repudiating the contract covered under the policy issued by the opponent No.1 even after intimating the said accident immediately and also claimed the insurance for damage of the said vehicle by submitting necessary documents, without any valid, bonafide acceptable reasons that, the opponent No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant by stating the reason that, "as per R.C book with effect from 13/09/2019, but as on the date of accident 09/11/2019, the policy is in the name of Mr. Dhananjaya.R S/o Mr. Ramu.R the accident occurred after two months after transfer of R.C but the policy and stands in the name of previous owner, hence there Insurable interest",  Absolutely, there is no delay, negligence, discrepancies on the part of the previous owner and present owner, the complainant of the said vehicle in following the procedure, rules and regulations as per terms and conditions of the policy, IMV Act, since both the said previous and present owners have intimated to the concerned all authorities including the opponents by informing the said RC, claiming compensation amount by way of damages in respect of the said accident.  Inspite of that, the opponent No.1 suppressing all true material facts, without considering and looking in to the documents, facts and circumstances have rejected the claim of present RC owner of the said vehicle / the complainant and same is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Further the complainant had submitted an estimation claiming compensation amount of Rs.3,80,000/- in respect of the damage of the said vehicle.  One Kedernath who is a technical surveyor of the opponent No.1 had visited the place of accident, assessed the damage of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/-.  Inspite of receipt of all the necessary documents as per law to the satisfaction of the opponent No.1 rejection of claim of the complainant is very bad and against the contract of insurance of policy.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 03/03/2020 to the opponents through registered post and courier, requesting to pay the damage amount of Rs.3,80,000/-in respect of the said vehicle of the complainant involved in the accident, inspite of receipt of the said legal notice the opponents have not turned up to pay the claim of the complainant and also have not issued any reply notice to the legal notice.  Complainant did not violated any laws as contemplated in rejecting.  Hence without any alternative way the complainant had submitted this complaint.

 

        4. This Commission after registering this complaint ordered for issuance of notice to opponents and same has been duly served, OP No.1 has appeared through their counsel Sri.K.M.B and filed vakalath and OP No.2 placed Ex-parte.

 

        5. Opponent No.1 counsel filed their version / objections by denying the complaint allegations i.e., OP No.1 have issued passenger carrying package policy to the Dhananjaya.R S/o Ramu.R to Innova Car bearing No.2314/5944/2931/00/000 from 04/02/2019 to 03/02/2020.  The said vehicle MFG year 2016 and IDV value of the vehicle Rs.14,00,000/-subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and its endorsements and the statutory provisions.

 

        6. Opponent No.1 further submits that, it is not admitted that the said vehicle purchase by petitioner from previous owner-Dhananjaya.R on 28/01/2019, and that the complainant as per law, procedure policy and I.M.V. Act, all necessary information along with documents have been submitted intimated / informed to the opponent No.1 and also to the R.T.O. Chitradurga to transfer the R.C. of the said vehicle, and also to transfer /renew the insurance policy from the name of the previous owner to the present owner Satish.S.  The other averments in same para are not admitted and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

 

        7. Further OP No.1 submits that, policy holder Dhananjaya.R submitted the claim intimation and other relevant documents along with policy to OP No.1 and we are appointed independent surveyor, and the said surveyor, and the said surveyor submitted R.C. policy and other relevant documents along with his final report to opponent No.1.  After receiving the said documents submitted by the Dhananjaya.R, it comes to know that the R.C. was transferred to Mr.Sathish, S/o Srinivas as per R.C. book w.e.f. 13/09/2019, but as on date of accident i.e., 09/11/2019 the policy is in the name of Dhananjaya.R S/o Ramu.R. The accident occurred after 2 months of R.C. transfer, but policy still in the name of previous owner.  As per the policy conditions within 14 days after transfer of the R.C. present owner transfer the policy in his name.  But the complaint not transferred the policy in his name and policy still in the name of previous owner.  Hence there is no insurable interest to the complainant to OP No.1 previous owner was given to the claim Form and all other intimation to OP No.1, they issued claim rejection letter to Dhananjaya.R on 31/12/2019 through RPAD.  The complainant has not given any intimation to opponent No.1 regarding the accident and we have not issued any claim rejection letter to complainant, hence, he cannot claim the compensation against the OP No.1.  Therefore this petition is not maintainable in law.

 

        8. The opponent No.1 further submitted that it is false to say that as averred in para (4) of the petition that the reason cited in a claim rejection letter on 31/12/10 without any valid, acceptable reasons and facts by repudiating the contract covered under the policy issued by the OP No.1 same is very bad in law facts and oppose to public policy and natural Justice.  The other averments in same para are not admitted and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the each one of the same.  Further, it is alleged that the averments made in para (5) (6) (7) to (9) of the petition that the complainant did not violated any laws as contemplated in rejecting the claim of the complainant by the opponent No.1 is oppose to law, natural justice and term and conditions of the policy and also natural justice are all false.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is barred by limitation.       

 

        9. The complainant has examined as P.W-1 filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents and got marked as exhibits A-1 to Exhibit A-18 and P.W-2 R.Dhananjaya has examined on behalf of complainant and closed his side evidence.

 

        10. The OP No.1 examined as D.W.1 through chief affidavit and produced 6 document marked as Exhibit B-1 to B-5 and the OP No.2 has not appeared before this commission hence, the complainant filed an application under order V Rule 20 for substitute service to appearance of OP No.2 through paper publication, as per Exhibit A-16 even then also OP No.2 not appeared and hence, placed ex-parte and closed their side evidence. The complainant and OP No.1 have filed their written arguments and heard the arguments.

 

11. The complainant has filed application Under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the name OP No.2 as Raghunatha instead of Raghupanna previously mentioned in complaint.  That application has been allowed and amendment has been done in the cause title of the complaint.  Accordingly amendment complaint has been filed by the complainant.

 

12. After perusal of the complaint and evidence and all documents, produced by the complainant and OP No.1, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer of OPs?

 

2. Whether the complainant entitled to receive Rs.3,80,000/- towards repairs and replacement charges as claimed?

 

3. Whether complainant entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for mental agony loss of income and compensation of Rs.10,000/-from OP No.1? And entitle to receive the above said amount along with 18% interest from the date of accident till date of deposit.

 

4. What order?

 

       13. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

1. Negative
2. Negative
3. Negative
4. As per final order

 

::  REASONS  ::

 

        14. Point No-1:- We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties.  The complainant is having policy in force at the time of accident.  The complainant examined as PW-1 and documents marked as exhibits A-1 to A-18 and PW-2 examined on behalf of the complainant.  Who is previous owner of the vehicle met an accident.  The OP No.1 has examined as D.W-1 and the document marked as Exhibit B-1 to
B-5 and OP No.2 placed ex-parte.  On perusal of documents produced by the complainant as per the complaint averments.  It is seen that the insurance of the vehicle as per Exhibit A-5 stands in the name of previous owner P.W-2 Dhananjaya.R but, not in the name of complainant at the time of accident.  Hence, the complainant is not coming under the purview of definition of Consumer Protection Act 2019, Section 2 (7), As such, this issue No.1 is considered is negative.

 

       15. Point No-2 & 3:- As per the evidence and documents of the complainant, the complainant has purchased Innova Car KA-16 C-6667 on 28/01/2019 from the previous owner i.e., P.W-2 Mr.Dhananjaya.R. S/o Ramu.R.  The opponent No.1 had issued comprehensive policy bearing No.2314/5944/2931/00/000, by collecting maximum insurance policy amount covering all sorts of risk and the said policy was valid from 13: 58 of 04/02/2019 to midnight at 03/02/2020 from the previous owner and the complainant transferred the vehicle, R.C in his name from the RTO Chitradurga but, the insurance policy was not transferred in his name, till the accident of the vehicle on 09/11/2019.  Till today, the policy was stands in the name of the previous owner Dhananjaya.R as per Exhibit A-5.  After the accident of the vehicle the complainant has got made survey by the technical persons and also submitted an estimation claiming compensation amount of Rs.3,80,000/- in respect of the damage of the said vehicle in accordance with law.  But, the opponent No.1 rejected the claim for the reasons cited in a claim rejected letter dated:31/12/2019 as per Exhibit A-7 by stating the reason that the accident occurred after two months after transfer for RC but the policy is stands in the name of previous owner and also as per evidence of p.w-2 the owner of the previous said Innova Vehicle and sold the said vehicle to the complainant on 28/01/2019 unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 09/11/2019, but, the policy was not transferred to complainant till the accident, so the policy stands in his name.

 

        16. As per the evidence of OP No.1, the policy holder Dhananjaya.R submitted the claim intimation and their relevant documents along with policy to the OP No.1 and they are appointed independent surveyor and the said surveyor submitted R.C. policy and other relevant documents along with his final report to the OP No.1.  After receiving the said documents submitted by the Dhananjaya.R it comes to know that the R.C. was transferred to Mr. Sathish S/o Srinivas as per R.C book on 13/09/2019, but as on the date of accident i.e., 09/11/2019, the policy is in the name of Dhananjaya.R S/o Ramu.R the accident occurred after 2 months of RC transfer, but policy still in the name of previous owner.  The policy condition with 14 days after transfer of the R.C.  But the complainant not transferred the policy in his name and the policy still in the name of previous owner.  Hence, here is no insurable interest to the complainant to OP No.1 previous owner was given to the claim form and all other intimation to opponent No.1. Hence, the OP No.1 has issued claim rejection letter to Dhananjaya.R on 31/12/2019.

 

17. The Hon'ble Commission perused the above documents evidence and facts, the complainant purchased the Innova vehicle from its previous owner Dhananjaya.R on 28/01/2019 and the same was transferred RC in the name of complainant on 13/09/2019, but the policy of Innova vehicle not transferred to the name of complainant, till the date of accident on 09/11/2019.  As per the policy conditions within 14 days after transfer of the RC the present owner transfer the policy in his name.  But, the complainant not transferred in his name and the policy still in the name of previous owner as per Exhibit A-5.

 

          Transfer of Certificate Insurance I.M.V. Act 1988 Section 157

 

   (1) Where a person 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 insurance relating thereto the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred infavour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer 1. Explanation: for the removed doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liability 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.  But, in this present complaint there is no transfer policy up to two months transfer of R.C from the previous owner of P.W-2.

 

 

Reported in 2008 (3) CPJ 240 (NC) NCDRC Omprakash Sharma V/s Manager National Insurance company limited and others relevant to the present case.

 

Where car insured met with accident, repudiation of claim by insurance company was held justified on petitioner not having transferred policy in his name till date of accident.

 

18. When no steps were taken for transfer of policy after transfer of vehicle transferee is not entitled to get benefit of insurance policy.  We came to the conclusion that, the complainant has not entitle any compensation from OPs. Hence, we considered Point No.2 and 3 are negative.

 

19. Point No.4 :- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following.

 

:: ORDER  ::

 

The present complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opponents is hereby dismissed.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open commission by us on 01^st August 2023.)

 

 

       

 Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:-

 

PW-1: Sri Sathish.S, S/o Late Srinivasa, by way of affidavit

           Evidence

PW-2: Sri Dhananjaya.R S/o Ramu.R, by way of affidavit

           evidence

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:-

 

01	Exhibit A-1	True copy of Registration Certificate
02	Exhibit A-2	True copy Whatsapp message Universal Sompo General Insurance Com. Ltd.,
03	Exhibit A-3	True Copy of Government of Karnataka Transport Department Receipt dated:15/02/2017
04	Exhibit A-4	True Copy of Certificate of Fitness dated:09/09/2019
05	Exhibit A-5	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd Policy Certificate dated:13/02/2019
06	Exhibit A-6	True Copy of issued by Government of Karnataka Transport Department B Register Extract (Rules 48 of KMV 1989) dated:15/02/2017
07	Exhibit A-7	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Claim Letter dated:31/12/2019
08	Exhibit A-8	Legal Notice dated:03/03/2020
09	Exhibit A-9	Copy of Innova Car accident photo copy dated 04/08/2020
10	Exhibit A-10	Copy of Professional Courier Receipt dated:02/03/2020
11	Exhibit A-11	Copy of Professional Courier Receipt dated:02/03/2020
12	Exhibit A-12	Copy of Innova Car accident photo copy
13	Exhibit A-13	Copy of Innova Car accident photo copy
14	Exhibit A-14	Copy of Innova Car accident photo copy
15	Exhibit A-15	Copy of Suddigiduga Newspaper dated:18/04/2021
16	Exhibit A-16	Copy of Whatsapp Message dated:22/10/2019
17	Exhibit A-17	Copy of issued by Government of Karnataka Transport Department Receipt dated:11/11/2019
18	Exhibit A-18	Copy of issued by Government of Karnataka Transport Department Receipt dated:29/12/2020

 

 

Witness examined on behalf of Opponent No. 1 :-

 

D.W-1: Rajanna  S/o Late Mukanna, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witness examined on behalf of Opponent No. 2 :-

Nil

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent No.1 :-

 

01	Exhibit B-1	Certified copy of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.  Policy Letter dated:04/02/2019 to 03/02/2019
02	Exhibit B-2	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor Passenger carrying vehicles  Policy
03	Exhibit B-3	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor Insurance Proposal Form dated:24/01/2022
04	Exhibit B-4	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Survey Report dated:20/11/2019
05	Exhibit B-5	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Claim Rejection letter dated:31/12/2019

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent No. 2:-

 

Nil

 

 

      Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

S.