The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd. V/S Dada Miyan S/o Nabi Sab - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 76/07

Dada Miyan S/o Nabi Sab - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R Basavraj

25 Apr 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 76/07

Dada Miyan S/o Nabi Sab						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager,United India Insurance Co.Ltd.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 76/07. THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2008. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. ***** COMPLAINANT :- Dada Miyan S/o. Nabi Sab, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Owner of Jeep bearing its Regn. No. KA-36/P 5566, R/o. Javalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// RESPONDENT :- The Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Gandhi Circle, Raichur (Policy No. 240203/31/06/01/00002120 valid from 28/9/06 to 27/9/07 issuing office at: Sindhanur Branch). CLAIM :- For direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- along with cost. Date of institution :- 17-10-07. Notice served :- 26-11-07. Date of disposal :- 26-04-08. Complainant represented by Sri. R. Basavaraj, Advocate. Respondent represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate. ----- This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant-Dada Miyan against Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-36/P-5566 which was insured with the Respondent under policy NO. 240203/31/06/01/00002120 valid from 28-09-06 to 27-09-07 obtained from Branch Office at Sindhanoor. On 28-01-07 at about 11-00 PM the complainant vehicle was burnt due to rash and negligent act of its driver. The driver of the Jeep tried to stop the Jeep near Javalagere, at that time the wheels squided near by the road side of the land. The driver attempted to run the jeep over the road. But suddenly he put his leg on the accelerator, then suddenly sparks came from the silencer and the Jeep was completely burnt. This fact was informed by the complainant to Fire Station, Sindhanoor. The Fire officials came to the spot with their vehicles by that time the vehicle was completely burnt as the distance between Sindhanoor to Javelagere the spot of the incident is 12 KM. Immediately after the incident the complainant approached the Respondent Insurance Company for claiming vehicle damages. But the Respondent straight away refused to pay the same as policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant and was standing in the name of its previous owner. Due to lack of knowledge the complainant has not entered his name in the said policy. The act of the complainant was not intentional one. Though on the date of accident the vehicle Insurance was in-force and before the incident the premium was collected for all risks of the vehicle. It is bounden duty of the Respondent to pay the vehicle damage amount as the Respondent has received the premium amount pertaining to the vehicle. As per the policy the value of the vehicle was declared at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant made an application on 01-02-07 for claiming the amount and finally on 26-04-07 he got issued legal notice through counsel but the Respondent is neglecting in settling the claim which clearly amounts to deficiency in service. After the incident the police officials have visited the spot and registered a case as per the Rules and Fire Officials were also given their report. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- along with cost. 2. The Respondent United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Raichur appeared through counsel and filed written version denying the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of this Forum and it is devoid of any material substance. The complainant is guilty of approaching this Forum with malifide intention just to derive un-due and illegal monetary gain. The complainant has no locus standia to file the present complaint as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Respondent. The Insurance policy issued the Respondent does not stand in the name of the complainant. He has not applied for transfer of the Insurance policy in his name within stipulated period of (14) days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in-question consequently he is not entitled to monetary benefits from the Respondent. Without prejudice it is submitted that the liability if any of the Respondent to pay compensation is subject to production of documents like survey report, estimates of repair, vehicle documents, driving licence etc., on the relevant time and date of accident. The complainant has not produced any documents nor the claim made by the complainant has been repudiated by the Respondent as such there is no cause of action. The claim made by the complainant is highly exaggerated and excessive and it is not supported by any documents. Therefore there is no deficiency in service. Hence for all these reasons OP has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal the Divisional Manager of Respondent has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant (17) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to P-17. On behalf of Respondent one document at Ex.R-1 was got marked. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the OP in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No. Ka-36/P 5566. The RC Book produced at Ex.P-8 go to show that the vehicle in-question was purchased by the complainant Dada Miyan from its original owner/RC Holder Smt. Ratnamma W/o. Sanna Veeranna R/o. Javalagere and thereby RC came to be transferred in the name of the complainant as on 31-10-06. The complainant claims that the vehicle in-question was insured with the Respondent under policy of Respondent which was valid from 28-09-06 to 27-09-07 and thereby Insurance of the vehicle was in-force as on the date of the accident that took place on 28-01-07. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of Insurance policy at Ex.P-9 and the Respondent has also produced the same at Ex.R-1. This document goes to show that the vehicle was insured by its previous owner Smt. Ratnamma and this Insurance has not been transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser/complainant. So on the date of accident the Insurance of the vehicle was sanding in the name of previous owner Smt. Ratnamma. 7. The L.C. for the complainant argued that since the vehicle has been insured by the previous owner and on the sale of the vehicle in favour of the complainant, the insurance of the vehicle automatically stands transferred in the name of the new-owner/complainant. So the Respondent is liable to pay the loss for the vehicle damages. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision reported in: IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) Head Note-1 which reads as under: (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) and 21(b)__Insurance__Claim not settled__Vehicle purchased from original owner__Met with accident__Insurance policy taken by original owner__Benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle__ Insurance Company liable to pay insurance amount along with interest__Compensation and cost awarded__Punitive cost imposed for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing India Motor Tariff Regulation. AND 2006 (2) CPR 124 Chhattisgarh State Commission Head Note which reads as under: (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Section 15__Appeal against repudiation of complaint by D.F.__Insurance Company repudiated claim on ground that complainant did not get policy transferred in his favour__GIC having issued circular to settle claim irrespective of policy being not transferred__Appeal allowed. 8. As against this the L.C. for the OP relying on section 157 of M.V. Act argued that the complainant has not applied for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his name within the stipulated period of (14) days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, so the complainant being purchaser of the vehicle is not entitled for the benefits of the Insurance policy obtained by the transferee. He further argued that the decision of the N.C. relied on by the complainant is in-respect of injury caused to the third party and not to the damages caused to the vehicle, so that decision is no more helpful to the complainant. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision report in I (1996) CLT 22 (SC) M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd.,V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Note which reads as under: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939__Section 103.A__Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act) Section 157__Transfer of Certificate of Insurance__New Act came into force with effect from 1st July 1989__ Transfer of registration__Intimation to transfer the insurance policy__No reply__Whether without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the appellant, it was entitled to be indemnified by the insurer?__(No). (2) AIR 1999 SC Page 1398 Head Note which reads as under: Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), Ss. 95 103 __Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss.10 157__Liability of insurance company__Policy not transferred in name of transferred vehicle__Not a ground to dny compensation by insurer to victim or LRs of victim. AND Un reported Judgement of our Honble State Commission in appeal No. 1837/2004 dt. 05-06-06 which interalia reads as under. But so far as own damage is concerned, the Supreme Court has taken the view that unless the Insurance Policy is transferred, the purchaser of the vehicle is not entitled for the benefit of the Insurance Policy obtained by the Transferor. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order is to be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed. 9. Of course from the decision of Honble Supreme Court relied on by the L.C. for the OP, the complainant/transferee is not entitle for the relief of compensation as the policy was not transferred in his favour. But the recent decision of Honble National Commission reported in 2007 CPJ Page 289 relied on by the L.C. for the complainant vide Head Note as referred above, shows that the benefit under the policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle and Insurance Company is liable to pay insurance amount. The decision further shows a punitive cost imposed on Insurance Company in that case, for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing India Motor Tariff Regulations. The Paras- 2 to 5 of the Judgement which is material to the instant case, reads as under: 2. It is highly deplorable on the part of the Insurance Company to take undue advantage of the ignorance of the consumers. In 1994, a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of the insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of the INdia Motor Tariff Regulation. The said regulation reads as under: Transfers: On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in-force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owners entitlement. If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the Insurance Company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs. 15. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate. 3. It appears that in a number of cases Insurance companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferees of the vehicle because the transferees were not having any insurable interest. 4. In the present case, it is apparent that Insurance Company has relied on some judgements of this commission as well as the judgements of the Apex Court in support of its contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief in case of contemplated peril as the policy was not transferred in favour of the transferee. 5. In this case, fortunately the learned counsel has pointed out the said tariff, therefore, by our order dated 4th December 2006, we requested the learned counsel Mr. Mehra, who is appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, to verify and file a clarificatory affidavit with regard to the said regulation on the automatic transfer of the policy in case of transfer of the vehicle. No affidavit is filed till today and learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to justify contrary to what is provided under the India Motor Tariff. 10. In para-2 of the Judgement the Honble National Commission has observed that in 1994 a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and transfer of Insurance benefits automatically accrue in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of India Motor Tariff Regulations. As per said Regulations on the transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in-force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, the bonus/malus will apply as per the new owners entitlement. It is also observed in Para-2 of the Judgement that If transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting the evidence of sale on proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of the insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting fee of Rs. 15/-. If the old certificate was not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate. 11. In para-3 of the said Judgement the Honble National Commission came down heavily on the Insurance Company that in a number of cases the Insurance Companies are suppressing this Regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all-force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Company are not liable to reimburse the insurer or the transferee of the vehicle because the transferee were not having any insurable interest. In Para-4 to 6 it is observed by National Commission that the Insurance Company has relied on some Judgement of this Commission (NC) as well as the Judgements of the Apex Court in support of its contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief in case of contemplated peril as the policy was not transferred in faour of the transferee. Fortunately the L.C. has pointed out the said Tariff, therefore by our order dt. 04-12-06, we requested the L.C. Mr. Mehra, who is appearing on behalf of Insurance company to verify and file a clarificatory affidavit with regard to the said regulations on the automatic transfer of the policy in case of transfer of vehicle. No affidavit is filed till today and L.C. for Insurance Company is not in a position to justify the contrary to what is provided under Indian Motor Tariff. We hope that in future the Insurance Company would be fair and not exploit the ignorance in dealing with the claims of insurers in such cases. In para-9 of the said judgement the Honble National Commission has observed that the L.C. for the petitioner has produced the Judgement rendered by Chattisgarh State Commission in Ajimuddin V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in III (2006) CPJ 273 = 2006 (2) CPR 124 wherein the State Commission Chattisgarh has observed in Para-7 as under: The GIC has issued special instructions regarding settlement of claim in case of transfer of policy. As per the said instruction the transfer of policy in favour of purchaser should be treated as automatic. It appears the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle. In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR-10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy. 12. So as per observation in Para-9 of the judgement it discloses that the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle and in the said circular the decision of the Honble S.C. in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for the policy issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within purview of GR-10 provisions may be settled in full, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 13. Therefore having regard to the dictum laid-down in the above said decision of the Honble National Commission, specifically in Para-2 to 6 & 9 of the judgement, on purchase of the insured vehicle, the insurance policy automatically stands transferred in favour of the purchaser/new owner. Further in-view of the observation of the Honble National Commission in para-4 of the judgement, that the Insurance Company in that case had referred the earlier judgements of National Commission and the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court on the contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief as the policy was not transferred in his favour, which contention has been negatived by the referred Judgment. So the two decisions of 1996 & 1999 of the Honble Supreme Court relied on by the L.C. for the Respondent are of no avail to the Respondent, especially when in Para-2 of the Judgement, the Honble National Commission has observed that the Tariff Advisory Committee has issued a Circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle and in that circular the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to, since the very decision of the Supreme Court (1996) has been relied upon by the L.C. in this case at Sl.No-1. 14. It would be more-so when the Respondents have not produced/relied on any decision of the Honble Supreme Court over ruling this recent decision of the Honble National Commission of 2007. Hence by applying the principles laid-down in the said decision of National Commission reported in CPJ 2007 Page 289, the Insurance policy of the vehicle/obtained by previous owner (Smt. Ratnamma) has been automatically transferred in favour of the complainant being the purchaser/new owner of the said vehicle. Hence the non-settlement of the claim by the Insurance Company amounts to deficiency in service. It would be more-so when the Honble National Commission in the referred judgement has directed the Registrar to send a copy of that Judgement to Mr. C.S.Rao, the Chairman Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) for taking appropriate action. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent-insurance company in not settling his claim. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 15. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- with interest and cost. Having regard to the complaint and oral & documentary evidence especially the Police Complaint/Statement of the complainant, Spot Panchanama and Report of Fire Station, Raichur the vehicle/jeep in-question was fully burnt and so the complainant is entitled for the declared value/policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 16. So far as the relief for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest and cost is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 8,000/- as global compensation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. Respondent Insurance Company shall pay policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant new owner of the insured vehicle along with global compensation of Rs. 8,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order with in (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish a copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-04-08) On Leave Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 76/07. THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2008. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. ***** COMPLAINANT :- Dada Miyan S/o. Nabi Sab, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Owner of Jeep bearing its Regn. No. KA-36/P 5566, R/o. Javalagera, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// RESPONDENT :- The Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Gandhi Circle, Raichur (Policy No. 240203/31/06/01/00002120 valid from 28/9/06 to 27/9/07 issuing office at: Sindhanur Branch). CLAIM :- For direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- along with cost. Date of institution :- 17-10-07. Notice served :- 26-11-07. Date of disposal :- 26-04-08. Complainant represented by Sri. R. Basavaraj, Advocate. Respondent represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate. ----- This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant-Dada Miyan against Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-36/P-5566 which was insured with the Respondent under policy NO. 240203/31/06/01/00002120 valid from 28-09-06 to 27-09-07 obtained from Branch Office at Sindhanoor. On 28-01-07 at about 11-00 PM the complainant vehicle was burnt due to rash and negligent act of its driver. The driver of the Jeep tried to stop the Jeep near Javalagere, at that time the wheels squided near by the road side of the land. The driver attempted to run the jeep over the road. But suddenly he put his leg on the accelerator, then suddenly sparks came from the silencer and the Jeep was completely burnt. This fact was informed by the complainant to Fire Station, Sindhanoor. The Fire officials came to the spot with their vehicles by that time the vehicle was completely burnt as the distance between Sindhanoor to Javelagere the spot of the incident is 12 KM. Immediately after the incident the complainant approached the Respondent Insurance Company for claiming vehicle damages. But the Respondent straight away refused to pay the same as policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant and was standing in the name of its previous owner. Due to lack of knowledge the complainant has not entered his name in the said policy. The act of the complainant was not intentional one. Though on the date of accident the vehicle Insurance was in-force and before the incident the premium was collected for all risks of the vehicle. It is bounden duty of the Respondent to pay the vehicle damage amount as the Respondent has received the premium amount pertaining to the vehicle. As per the policy the value of the vehicle was declared at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant made an application on 01-02-07 for claiming the amount and finally on 26-04-07 he got issued legal notice through counsel but the Respondent is neglecting in settling the claim which clearly amounts to deficiency in service. After the incident the police officials have visited the spot and registered a case as per the Rules and Fire Officials were also given their report. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- along with cost. 2. The Respondent United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Raichur appeared through counsel and filed written version denying the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of this Forum and it is devoid of any material substance. The complainant is guilty of approaching this Forum with malifide intention just to derive un-due and illegal monetary gain. The complainant has no locus standia to file the present complaint as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Respondent. The Insurance policy issued the Respondent does not stand in the name of the complainant. He has not applied for transfer of the Insurance policy in his name within stipulated period of (14) days from the date of transfer of the vehicle in-question consequently he is not entitled to monetary benefits from the Respondent. Without prejudice it is submitted that the liability if any of the Respondent to pay compensation is subject to production of documents like survey report, estimates of repair, vehicle documents, driving licence etc., on the relevant time and date of accident. The complainant has not produced any documents nor the claim made by the complainant has been repudiated by the Respondent as such there is no cause of action. The claim made by the complainant is highly exaggerated and excessive and it is not supported by any documents. Therefore there is no deficiency in service. Hence for all these reasons OP has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal the Divisional Manager of Respondent has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant (17) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to P-17. On behalf of Respondent one document at Ex.R-1 was got marked. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the OP in not settling his claim, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No. Ka-36/P 5566. The RC Book produced at Ex.P-8 go to show that the vehicle in-question was purchased by the complainant Dada Miyan from its original owner/RC Holder Smt. Ratnamma W/o. Sanna Veeranna R/o. Javalagere and thereby RC came to be transferred in the name of the complainant as on 31-10-06. The complainant claims that the vehicle in-question was insured with the Respondent under policy of Respondent which was valid from 28-09-06 to 27-09-07 and thereby Insurance of the vehicle was in-force as on the date of the accident that took place on 28-01-07. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of Insurance policy at Ex.P-9 and the Respondent has also produced the same at Ex.R-1. This document goes to show that the vehicle was insured by its previous owner Smt. Ratnamma and this Insurance has not been transferred in the name of subsequent purchaser/complainant. So on the date of accident the Insurance of the vehicle was sanding in the name of previous owner Smt. Ratnamma. 7. The L.C. for the complainant argued that since the vehicle has been insured by the previous owner and on the sale of the vehicle in favour of the complainant, the insurance of the vehicle automatically stands transferred in the name of the new-owner/complainant. So the Respondent is liable to pay the loss for the vehicle damages. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision reported in: IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) Head Note-1 which reads as under: (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) and 21(b)__Insurance__Claim not settled__Vehicle purchased from original owner__Met with accident__Insurance policy taken by original owner__Benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle__ Insurance Company liable to pay insurance amount along with interest__Compensation and cost awarded__Punitive cost imposed for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing India Motor Tariff Regulation. AND 2006 (2) CPR 124 Chhattisgarh State Commission Head Note which reads as under: (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Section 15__Appeal against repudiation of complaint by D.F.__Insurance Company repudiated claim on ground that complainant did not get policy transferred in his favour__GIC having issued circular to settle claim irrespective of policy being not transferred__Appeal allowed. 8. As against this the L.C. for the OP relying on section 157 of M.V. Act argued that the complainant has not applied for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his name within the stipulated period of (14) days from the date of transfer of the vehicle, so the complainant being purchaser of the vehicle is not entitled for the benefits of the Insurance policy obtained by the transferee. He further argued that the decision of the N.C. relied on by the complainant is in-respect of injury caused to the third party and not to the damages caused to the vehicle, so that decision is no more helpful to the complainant. In-support of his argument he has relied on decision report in I (1996) CLT 22 (SC) M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd.,V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Head Note which reads as under: Motor Vehicles Act, 1939__Section 103.A__Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act) Section 157__Transfer of Certificate of Insurance__New Act came into force with effect from 1st July 1989__ Transfer of registration__Intimation to transfer the insurance policy__No reply__Whether without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the appellant, it was entitled to be indemnified by the insurer?__(No). (2) AIR 1999 SC Page 1398 Head Note which reads as under: Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), Ss. 95 103 __Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss.10 157__Liability of insurance company__Policy not transferred in name of transferred vehicle__Not a ground to dny compensation by insurer to victim or LRs of victim. AND Un reported Judgement of our Honble State Commission in appeal No. 1837/2004 dt. 05-06-06 which interalia reads as under. But so far as own damage is concerned, the Supreme Court has taken the view that unless the Insurance Policy is transferred, the purchaser of the vehicle is not entitled for the benefit of the Insurance Policy obtained by the Transferor. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order is to be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed. 9. Of course from the decision of Honble Supreme Court relied on by the L.C. for the OP, the complainant/transferee is not entitle for the relief of compensation as the policy was not transferred in his favour. But the recent decision of Honble National Commission reported in 2007 CPJ Page 289 relied on by the L.C. for the complainant vide Head Note as referred above, shows that the benefit under the policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of vehicle and Insurance Company is liable to pay insurance amount. The decision further shows a punitive cost imposed on Insurance Company in that case, for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing India Motor Tariff Regulations. The Paras- 2 to 5 of the Judgement which is material to the instant case, reads as under: 2. It is highly deplorable on the part of the Insurance Company to take undue advantage of the ignorance of the consumers. In 1994, a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of the insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of the INdia Motor Tariff Regulation. The said regulation reads as under: Transfers: On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in-force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owners entitlement. If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the Insurance Company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs. 15. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate. 3. It appears that in a number of cases Insurance companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferees of the vehicle because the transferees were not having any insurable interest. 4. In the present case, it is apparent that Insurance Company has relied on some judgements of this commission as well as the judgements of the Apex Court in support of its contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief in case of contemplated peril as the policy was not transferred in favour of the transferee. 5. In this case, fortunately the learned counsel has pointed out the said tariff, therefore, by our order dated 4th December 2006, we requested the learned counsel Mr. Mehra, who is appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, to verify and file a clarificatory affidavit with regard to the said regulation on the automatic transfer of the policy in case of transfer of the vehicle. No affidavit is filed till today and learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to justify contrary to what is provided under the India Motor Tariff. 10. In para-2 of the Judgement the Honble National Commission has observed that in 1994 a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and transfer of Insurance benefits automatically accrue in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of India Motor Tariff Regulations. As per said Regulations on the transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in-force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, the bonus/malus will apply as per the new owners entitlement. It is also observed in Para-2 of the Judgement that If transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting the evidence of sale on proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of the insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting fee of Rs. 15/-. If the old certificate was not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate. 11. In para-3 of the said Judgement the Honble National Commission came down heavily on the Insurance Company that in a number of cases the Insurance Companies are suppressing this Regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all-force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Company are not liable to reimburse the insurer or the transferee of the vehicle because the transferee were not having any insurable interest. In Para-4 to 6 it is observed by National Commission that the Insurance Company has relied on some Judgement of this Commission (NC) as well as the Judgements of the Apex Court in support of its contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief in case of contemplated peril as the policy was not transferred in faour of the transferee. Fortunately the L.C. has pointed out the said Tariff, therefore by our order dt. 04-12-06, we requested the L.C. Mr. Mehra, who is appearing on behalf of Insurance company to verify and file a clarificatory affidavit with regard to the said regulations on the automatic transfer of the policy in case of transfer of vehicle. No affidavit is filed till today and L.C. for Insurance Company is not in a position to justify the contrary to what is provided under Indian Motor Tariff. We hope that in future the Insurance Company would be fair and not exploit the ignorance in dealing with the claims of insurers in such cases. In para-9 of the said judgement the Honble National Commission has observed that the L.C. for the petitioner has produced the Judgement rendered by Chattisgarh State Commission in Ajimuddin V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in III (2006) CPJ 273 = 2006 (2) CPR 124 wherein the State Commission Chattisgarh has observed in Para-7 as under: The GIC has issued special instructions regarding settlement of claim in case of transfer of policy. As per the said instruction the transfer of policy in favour of purchaser should be treated as automatic. It appears the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle. In the said circular the decision of Supreme Court in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for policies issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within the purview of GR-10 provisions may be settled in full subject to the other terms and conditions of the policy. 12. So as per observation in Para-9 of the judgement it discloses that the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular regarding automatic transfer of policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle and in the said circular the decision of the Honble S.C. in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to. In the said circular it was stated that for the policy issued as per revised Motor Tariff, own damage claim which fall within purview of GR-10 provisions may be settled in full, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 13. Therefore having regard to the dictum laid-down in the above said decision of the Honble National Commission, specifically in Para-2 to 6 & 9 of the judgement, on purchase of the insured vehicle, the insurance policy automatically stands transferred in favour of the purchaser/new owner. Further in-view of the observation of the Honble National Commission in para-4 of the judgement, that the Insurance Company in that case had referred the earlier judgements of National Commission and the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court on the contention that the transferee was not entitled to get the relief as the policy was not transferred in his favour, which contention has been negatived by the referred Judgment. So the two decisions of 1996 & 1999 of the Honble Supreme Court relied on by the L.C. for the Respondent are of no avail to the Respondent, especially when in Para-2 of the Judgement, the Honble National Commission has observed that the Tariff Advisory Committee has issued a Circular regarding automatic transfer of the policy to the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle and in that circular the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd., V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., was referred to, since the very decision of the Supreme Court (1996) has been relied upon by the L.C. in this case at Sl.No-1. 14. It would be more-so when the Respondents have not produced/relied on any decision of the Honble Supreme Court over ruling this recent decision of the Honble National Commission of 2007. Hence by applying the principles laid-down in the said decision of National Commission reported in CPJ 2007 Page 289, the Insurance policy of the vehicle/obtained by previous owner (Smt. Ratnamma) has been automatically transferred in favour of the complainant being the purchaser/new owner of the said vehicle. Hence the non-settlement of the claim by the Insurance Company amounts to deficiency in service. It would be more-so when the Honble National Commission in the referred judgement has directed the Registrar to send a copy of that Judgement to Mr. C.S.Rao, the Chairman Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) for taking appropriate action. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent-insurance company in not settling his claim. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 15. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards declared value of the vehicle and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation totaling to Rs. 1,70,000/- with interest and cost. Having regard to the complaint and oral & documentary evidence especially the Police Complaint/Statement of the complainant, Spot Panchanama and Report of Fire Station, Raichur the vehicle/jeep in-question was fully burnt and so the complainant is entitled for the declared value/policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 16. So far as the relief for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with interest and cost is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 8,000/- as global compensation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. Respondent Insurance Company shall pay policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant new owner of the insured vehicle along with global compensation of Rs. 8,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order with in (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish a copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-04-08) On Leave Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.