Date of filing:- 20/04/2015.
Date of Order:- 26/02/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2015.
Aswini Kumar Dash S/o Laxminarayan Dash, aged about 40(forty) years, Occupation- Business (contractor), Resident of village – Bargarh, Ward No.8(eight), Khajurtikra, P.o/P.s/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... .... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, one Janpath-III Floor, 2-C, Janpath, Shriya Square, Kharabela Nagar, Unit No-3, Bhubaneswar-751001, District-Khorda. ..... ..... .....Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties :-
For the Complainant :- Sri D.Acharya, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (w).
Dt.26/02/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case :-
The Case of the of the Complainant is that he has purchased one Motor vehicle from one Ramesh Kumar Jain, the registered owner of the same vide regd No-OR-08-F-5116, model Hyundai, I-20 which was insured with the Opposite Party, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co Ltd which was valid up to Dt. 20.10.2014.
Accordingly the Complainant get it transferred to his name by applying before the R.T.A. Kalahandi on Dt.25.11.2013 and that on Dt.03.05.2014 while he was coming from Balangir to Bargarh on the way he met with an accident near Loisingha whereby a police case was registered in the Loisingha Police station vide P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 and subsequently turn to one G.R. Case vide No. 56 of 2014 and is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C Loisingha Dist. Balangir.
In furtherance to his case, the Complainant reported about the same to the Opposite Party claiming compensation for the damaged caused to the Vehicle over phone in the toll free No. 1800-209-5858 on Dt.03.07.2014 but his allegation is that even after getting the Information, the Opposite Party instead of settling the same claim has repudiated on the ground that though the Insurance policy stands in the name of the previous owner of the vehicle but the ownership has been changed to the name of the present Complainant on the Date of the accident hence could not be settled, but the case of the Complainant he has obtained an estimated quotation for the repair work of the Vehicle from one Soona Garage of Bargarh for an amount of Rs.3,38,200/-(Rupees three lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred)only and has sent the copy of the same to the Opposite Party but instead of allowing the same the Opposite Party has repudiated, hence has preferred to file the case before the Forum claiming deficiencies of service against him and has also claim Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only in lieu of litigation expenses, and to substantiate his case has filed some documents as follows.
The Registration certificate standing in the name of the Complainant.
The Estimated quotation of the Soona Garage for an amount of Rs. 3,38,200/-(Rupees three lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred)only.
The Letter of repudiation from the Opposite Party.
The certified Copies of the Police Papers.
Having gone through the Complaint, the documents, and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant it was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party, and being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed their version contending that the case is not maintainable in the Forum since there is no deficiencies in rendering service on their part and also denied all other averment made by the Complainant. Further more it has declined to have their liability towards the claim of the Complainant particularly because by the date of the accident the vehicle in question was in the name of the Complainant but the insurance policy was not transferred to the Complainant as such are violative to the policy terms and condition laid down by the IRDA. In addition to that also it has been contended in it’s version that in spite of the aforesaid condition the Opposite Party has extended their helping hand towards the claim of the Complainant by supplying the claim form to place his claim and also has immediately deputed a surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle and also the same was estimated but since the claim does not cover within the stipulated policy condition has repudiated the same, so in no way they are liable for any deficient action on their part And also denied to have any liability in settling the claim of the Complainant as the Complainant has got no insurable interest on the date of accident, it is also pointed out by the Opposite Party that as GR 17 of the Indian Motor tariff, the own damage can only be transferred on receipt of specific form from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. And that transfer can only be done on getting acceptable evidence of sale and proposal form and fresh proposal form duely filled and signed. And as such has prayed to dismiss the case with cost. And in it’s support has filed the following documents .
True Copy of the Private car pachage policy schedule-(1 sheet).
Private car Package Policy-(7 sheet).
Evidence of Opposite Party by way of Affidavit-(1 sheet).
Motor Insurance Claim form Submitted by Aswini Kumar Dash before O.P.-(2 sheet)
Letter of O.P. Dt.25.8.2014 to Insured ramesh Kumar Jain with Postal receipt.(2 sheet).
Having gone through the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and the version filed by the Opposite Party and their supporting documents and on hearing the respective Counsels for the Parties some points as mentioned below are to be adjudicated for the just decision of the case.
Whether there is deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant on the part of the Opposite Party ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim sought for by him ?
Firstly while dealing with the point as to whether the Opposite Party has committed deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, delving deeply in to the materials available in the record and on hearing the respective counsels of the parties, we observed that one Ramesh Kumar Jain was the original registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.OR-08-F-5116 and was insured with the Opposite Party in his name which was valid from Dt.25.10.2013.to 24.10.2014 and it is an admitted fact that the same has been sold away to the Complainant on Dt.15.09.2013 and it has also been Registered in his name on Dt. 25.11.2013 in the Office of R.T.A.Kalahandi and the same vehicle met with an accident on Dt.03.05.2014 while he was coming from Balangir to Bargarh, during the subsistence of the Insurance period. As such the Complainant has claimed for the damage caused to the Vehicle due to the said accident. And in support of his such claim he has placed an estimation from one Garage namely Soona Garage. But the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim and has acknowledged him by a letter of repudiation.
Thus the case before the Forum filed by the Complainant, And in support of his case the Learned Advocate for the Complainant vehemently argued before the Forum by citing the Provision U/S 157, and submitted before the Forum that when a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the 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 thereof, 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, and he has claimed his claim as justified and as the opposite has repudiated the same amounting to deficiencies of service.
And The counsel for the Opposite Party on his rival contention has submitted in defending the case of the Complainant that they have never been deficient in giving service to the Complainant as, soon after getting information of the accident they have taken necessary steps by supplying claim form asking the complainant to apply with it being duely filled up and also they have deputed an authorized surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle due to the said accident and also the surveyor has assessed the loss and has given his report for an amount of Rs.1,83,975/-(Rupees one lakh eighty three thousand nine hundred seventy five)only but subject to the fulfillment of the policy terms and condition as such are never been deficient in providing service, And the Advocate for the Opposite Party has vehemently opposed to the case of the Complainant by referring to the Clause 2 of the same provision of the Motor Vehicle Act u/s 157 supported by a decision of the Honorable National Commission Vide revision Petition 1167 of 2006 wherein the Honrable have dealt with the said provision of the Motor Vehicle Act embodied with several references of the decision of the Apex court (Supreme Court). And that he has submitted before the Forum that the provision U/s 157 of the Act is justified in case it has followed by the clause 2 of the same but as it has not been complied with the same is not maintainable and have rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant as the original insured, having sold the vehicle had no insurable interest as the vehicle was not in his name at the time of accident nor the transferee of the said vehicle has intimated the Opposite Party about the said transfer within the stipulated period of fourteen days from the date of such transfer, And we did not find any counter materials from the end of the Complainant, hence in our view having regard to the Decision of the Honorable National Forum read with the said provision of the Motor Vehicle Act U/S 157(2), the Complainant has measurably failed to prove his case against the Opposite Party as such it is answered accordingly against the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question of the entitlement of the claim of the Complainant, as it is observed as mentioned in our foregoing paragraph that the Complainant has failed to establish his case against the Opposite Party, it is obvious to express our views against the Claim of the Complainant, and as such it is answered against the Complainant. Hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence in view if the above facts and circumstances, the Complainant has failed to establish his case against the Opposite Party, hence in the result the case of the Complainant is hereby dismissed, without any cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
