BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 23/2013.
THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Nagaraj R. S/o. Ramulu aged about 31 years,
Owner of Mahindra Logon Car bearing No.
KA-36/M-7108, R/o. Maddipet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company Ltd., Gandhi Chowk, Raichur-584 101.
Date of institution :- 01-04-2013.
Date of disposal :- 27-09-2013.
Complainant represented by Sri. Aravinda Patil, Advocate
Respondent represented by Sri. N.R. Malagi, Advocate
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the owner of the car bearing registration No. KA-36/M-7108 which was insured with the Respondent’s Insurance Company which was valid from 25-08-2011 to 24-08-2012. The complainant had purchased the said car on 13-06-2012 from its previous owner Shantamalla Shivacharya Swamiji. Immediately after the purchase of the said car the RC was transferred in the name of the complainant. For transfer of the Insurance policy of the said vehicle, the complainant had given an application to the Respondent on 18-06-2012. But the Respondent inspite of application given by the complainant had not transferred the policy in his name. The said vehicle met with an accident on 14-08-2012 at about 9:15 PM within the limits of Raichur Rural Police Station, where the case was registered in Crime No. 166/2012 regarding the said accident. Regarding the accident the complainant had given intimation to the Respondent who asked him to shift the damaged vehicle to any garage. Immediately complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to Mahindra Showroom at Secunderabad by spending Rs. 6,520/-. The surveyor had inspected the said vehicle and asked the Mahindra Showroom mechanic to submit the detailed estimation of cost of repairs. After the completion of repair work the Mahindra showroom issued bills including labor charges for Rs. 1,10,982/- and the complainant produced the same before the Respondent along with required documents and made claim with them. However the Respondent failed to make the payment to the complainant towards the damage caused to his vehicle and tried to escape from his liability which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Respondent. Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent for which reply was sent by the Respondent repudiating the claim of the complainant for the reason that at the time of accident the policy of insurance was not in the name of the complainant. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed the written version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Allegations made in the complaint are not admitted as they are not true and correct. All the allegations made in the complaint which are not traversed and which are contrary to the allegations made in the written statement are denied. The policy of Insurance issued in favour of the vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-7108 is subject to various conditions and limitations. There is no contract of insurance between the complainant and Respondent. Hence there is no insurable interest between the complainant and Respondent at the time of accident. As such, the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It is specifically denied that the complainant had given an application to the Respondent on 18-06-2012 for transfer of the policy in his name. There is no whisper about filing of such application by the complainant in the legal notice issued to the Respondent. This shows that the complainant has not filed any application to transfer the Insurance policy in his name. It is the duty of the complainant to inform the Respondent about the transfer of the vehicle and also to request for transfer of certificate of insurance as per section 157(2) of MV Act. The complainant has to give notice within 14 days to transfer the certificate of insurance which is not given by the complainant. When there is no contract of insurance between the complainant and Respondent, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent does not arise. After getting the information about the accident the Respondent has informed the complainant to submit the claim form, FIR etc., and estimate of repairs for processing the claim for damages. The surveyor was appointed and he has given report. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as PW-1 and relied on eighteen documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. The Respondent to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-1 and relied on seven documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7.
5. Respondent filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent’s Insurance Company against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
6. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In Negative
(2) In Negative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. The Respondent admitting the issuance of policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-7108, repudiated the claim made by the complainant to pay the cost of damage caused to the said vehicle in the alleged accident on the ground that though the RC of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant when he purchased the said vehicle from its previous owner, the policy of insurance being not transferred in his name as on the date of the alleged accident. It is the contention of the Respondent that, when the vehicle was transferred in his name the complainant was bound to inform the same to the insurance company and ask for transfer of certificate of Insurance as per section 157(2) of MV Act 1988 and that being not done, the policy of Insurance having not been transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of alleged accident there was no contract of insurance entered into between the complainant and Respondent, the question of the Respondent compensating the complainant for damage caused to his vehicle in the alleged accident does not arise at all. The policy of insurance being not transferred in his name, is not denied by the complainant. His contention that after he had purchased the said vehicle from the previous owner on 13-06-2011 he gave an application to the Respondent on 18-06-2012 for transfer of the policy in his name the Respondent had not transferred the policy in his name even after oral and written request by him is without any proof. To substantiate this contention the complainant has not produced any evidence which is worth relying when the Respondent has denied about the receipt of any such application from the complainant, the complainant is bound to prove this aspect. He made endeavor to prove the same by producing the letter said to have been given by him to the Respondent asking for transfer of Insurance policy in his name, the copy of which is marked as Ex.P-4. But there is no evidence at all which goes to show that, the said letter was actually sent to the Respondent and was replied by him. If he had sent the letter by post there must be postal receipt to that effect. If it was served personally then there must be an acknowledgement obtained from the Respondent but no such postal receipt or acknowledgement is produced by the complainant to prove that the letter dt. 18-06-2012 was served on the Respondent. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the complainant had given requisition to the Respondent to transfer the policy of insurance in his name. Therefore no fault can be found with the Respondent in not transferring the policy of insurance in the name of the complainant. Besides, this as contended by the Respondent there is no whisper about the issue of such letter dt. 18-06-2012 in the legal notice issued by the complainant dt. 15-02-2013. Therefore there is no way other than to conclude that the alleged letter dt. 18-06-2012 may be letter concocted to suit the needs of the complainant. Besides, this as per section 157(2) MV Act the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes with regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance. However no such application is found given by the complainant, he being the transferee, to the Respondent to make necessary changes in the policy of insurance. That being the case the policy being not transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of the cause of action i.e, damage caused to the vehicle and there being no contract of insurance entered into between the complainant and Respondent’s Insurance Company the Respondent is not bound to reimburse the cost of damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant. In this regard the counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in ILR 1996 KAR 799, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically stated that to fix the liability on the Insurance Company to pay damage caused to own vehicle there must be contract of insurance between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company and if it was not there the insurer is not liable to make good the damage caused to the vehicle. The learned counsel for the Respondent also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 1654 wherein it is held that there being no agreement of transfer of insurance policy between the insurer and the transferee, accident claim filed by the transferee cannot be entertained. Here in this case also there being no contract of insurance between the complainant and the Respondent, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation towards damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant in the alleged accident. Therefore the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Insurance Company is proper and legal. Therefore deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the Respondent. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
8. As the complainant has failed to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of Respondent he is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
9. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on 27-09-2013 )
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
