:: O R D E R ::
(BY Smt. K.Vinaya Kumari, Lady Member)
- The brief facts of the complaint are –
2. The Complainant a resident of Nizamabad district purchased Maruthi Car of 2007 Year Model Bearing No. AP-09-BJ-8796 from its owner Sri.Anish Wadhvaniya R/o Hyderabad through Dr. Car agency on 27.10.2010 and got the R.C transferred on his name. The above said car is insured with opposite party vide Policy No.OG-11-2202-1801-00009031 valid from 4-7-2010 to 3.7.2011. The insured declared value is Rs.1,63,541/-.
Unfortunately the car mets with accident on 16-4-2011 when the car was Proceeding from Bheemgal to Sirikonda and the car is damaged extensively. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed about the same to the opposite party and submitted all relevant documents. The opposite party registered the claim of the complaint as claim No OC-12-1801-1801-00001327 and appointed surveyor to assess the damages. The opposite party through their letter dated 30.04.2011 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the insurance is not in the name of complainant though the R.C is in the name of the complainant.
On the request of the complainant Sri.G.Venkat Prasad Reddy an authorized / licensed surveyor on 2.5.2011 inspected the damaged vehicle at M/s Vishnu Sai Motors at Nizamabad and assessed the damages to the car at Rs.1,13,500/-. The Vishnu Sai Motors, the authorized Maruthi Service Centre gave estimation for Rs.1,51,257/- for repair.
The complainant who was facing lot of inconvenience and hardship due to the accident to the car got it repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,32,289/- and also incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,000/- toward to and for charges, conveyance and miscellaneous expenditure.
On the date of accident to the vehicle the insurance policy was in force and the policy covers risk of own damage. As per the settled law the insurance policy runs with the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim by Opposite parties is deficiency in service and illegal. Therefore approached the Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay claim amount of Rs.1,32,289/- along with interest @9% p.a, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service, and Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- toward the costs of the complaint.
3. The opposite party filed counter admitting that they issued Policy vide No.OG-11-2202-1801-00009031 to Mr.Anish Wadhvaniya valid from 4.7.2010 to 3.7.2011 subject to terms, conditions and limitations of the Policy but denied all other allegation of the complainant subject to proof of the same.
In their counter opposite party contended that at the time of accident as per the registration of the vehicle the Vehicle bearing No.AP-09-BJ-8796 was in the name of Mr.S.Srinivas (complainant) where as the policy was in the name of Mr.Anish wadhvaniya as such there is no contract of insurance with the complainant. As per the complaint, the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 27.10.2010 but neither the complainant nor the previous owner of the vehicle intimated the same to them and changed the name in the policy till filing of counter. As per the All India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist Insurance contract at the time of taking Policy as well as at the time of loss.
Further contended that on receipt of the claim they had appointed surveyor and he had assessed the loss at Rs.71,978/- but as there is no contract of insurance they repudiated the claim of the complainant and intimated the same to the complainant vide their letter dated 30.4.2011. Finally stated that there is no deficiency in their service to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs in the ends of Justice.
4. During the enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit as Pw1 and also Pw2 affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 documents. On behalf of Opposite party Sri.Jetla Mahesh, Legal Executive filed his affidavit as Rw2 and got marked Ex.B1 to B5 documents.
5. Heard arguments of both side counsels and perused the written arguments filed by opposite party and Judgments of various commissions filed by both parties.
6. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs prayed for ?
- To what relief ?
- Point No: 1
The undisputed, proven facts as per complaint, evidence adduced on both sides are that the complainant purchased Maruthi 1997 Model vide Registration No.AP-09-BJ-8796 from Sri.Anish Wadhvaniya. After purchase, the Complainant transferred registration on his name on 10.2.2011. The vehicle was insured with opposite party vide Policy No.OG-11-1801-00009031 valid from 4.7.2010 to 3.7.2011. The insurance policy is in the name of Sri.Anish wadhvaniya the previous owner. The vehicle met with accident on 16.4.2011. At the time of accident the policy was inforce. The opposite party surveyor assessed the damage to the vehicle at Rs.71,978/-.
The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 30.4.2011 on the reason that the policy is in the name of Sri.Anish Wadhvaniya and hence there is no contract of insurance between the complainant and the opposite party.
Now the Point for discussion is whether the complainant is entitled for insurance claim as prayed for ?
The complainant in support of his version filed his affidavit as pw1and affidavit of Sri.Anish Wadhvaniya as Pw2 (the previous owner) and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 documents.
The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the policy was inforce at the time of accident and it covers the risk of own damages. As per the settled law the insurance policy runs with the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim by opposite party is unfair and deficiency in service and filed Hon’ble Apex court judgment in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Shimla Vs Tilak singh and others reported in 2006(2) IAC1(SC) and National commission judgment in case of Shri Narayan singh Vs New India Assurance co.ltd. in revision petition No.556 of 2002 reported in SC Judgement on macc in support of his version.
The opposite party in their version contended that as per GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff which replaced GR 10 with effect from 1.7.2002 it is specifically mentioned that the transfer shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing to the insurer with the details of registration of the vehicle, date of transfer, date of insurance policy and no of the policy so that the insurer may make necessary changes in the record and issue fresh certificate of insurance but as the same was not complied by the complainant and the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant and therefore they have no contract of insurance with the complainant. Further stated they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them as there is no deficiency in their service. In support of their version filed Ex.B1 to B5 documents and filed following judgments of National commission in support of their version.
1. Revision petition no.1528 of 2007 in case of New India Assurance co.ltd Vs Dalip kumar
2.Revision petition no.2964 of 2007 in case of United India Insurance co.ltd Vs Goil Sridhar and Suryamitra hi pur Finance.
On perusal of the Apex court Judgment in case of united India Insurance co. Shimla Vs Tilak singh relied by the complainant it is clear that the issue involved therein is regarding risk to the life or damages to the properties of third party which is different from the issue involved in the present case in hand. Therefore the above case law relied by the complainant is. not applicable to this case.
Another decision of National commission in case of Shri.Narayan singh Vs New India Assurance co. reported in SC Judgment on MACC at page149 relied by the complainant is also not applicable to the present case on hand as the facts therein are quite different from the facts of this case. In the above decision the 14 days period of giving information with regard to the transfer of vehicle from the date of its purchase was not over by the date of accident.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram & Another Vs Sukhrania & ors reported in (2003) 3 SCC 97, while interpreting the provisions of Sec.157 held that although with the transfer of vehicle the Insurance Company remaining liable towards third party claims but the transferee can not get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act.
GR 10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee was replaced by GR 17 w.e.f 1.7.2002.
As per GR 17, on transfer of ownership, transferee is required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who had insured the vehicle with the details of registration of vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle, and the date and number of the policy so that the insurer may make necessary changes in the record.
10. In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission, if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and if policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of Vehicle. The complainant did not produce any document to prove that he had intimated the insurance company about transfer of vehicle in his name. Neither the complainant nor the previous owner Mr.Anish wadhvaniya informed about the sale of vehicle and transfer of registration to the opposite party i.e insurance company. In view of discussion held supra and having considered entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party since the complainant did not intimate/inform the insurance company about the transfer of Registration of vehicle in his name and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim. Therefore the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
11. Accordingly the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for.
12. In the Result, the Complaint of the Complainant is “DISMISSED”. No Order to Costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4th day of June 2014.
