BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 17th April 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 310/2014
Complainant/s: Santosh S/o.Durgappa Naik, At: Hosaritti, Po: Hosaritti, Tq. & Dist. Haveri 581110.
(By Sri.D.B.Kallanagoudar, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: The Manager, Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd., 1st Floor, Kalburgi Square, Deshapande Nagar, Hubli 590029.
(By Sri.S.S.Karegoudar, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @18% P.A, from the date of complaint till realization with cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, complainant had purchased Maruti Omni vehicle bearing registration no.KA 01 C-4658 on 21.11.2011 and the RC was changed in the name of complainant and the same was insured with respondent company. While the complainant along with his friends returning after attending family function at Karwar on 26.12.2011 the said vehicle met with accident near Guttal Cross, Basavanakatte village of Haveri taluk. The said accident was reported & registered under Crime No.150/2012 by Guttal Police. The complainant lost his left hand in the said accident and was shifted to Viveknand hospital Hubli for treatment. Left hand was amputed. The complainant was Barber by profession and he was earning his livelihood out of his profession. Due to lost of left hand the complainant become 100% disable and he is facing financial difficulties. The accident was intimated immediately to the respondent, but the respondent has not sent any representative for investigating with regard to the accident. Instead sought for produce documents. All the documents were furnished but not responded. On 23.12.2013 complainant issued legal notice claiming compensation. Till today not replied nor complied. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version admitting the issuance of the policy, coverage of the risk to the date of accident in the name of insured Ravikumar M.Pandit subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further averred the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and contended complainant has suppressed the real facts. Admits submission of the claim by the complainant on 27.12.2011. As per the RC produced by the complainant the vehicle has been transferred to the complainant by its previous owner Ravikumar M.Pandit who was the insured on 27.12.2011 by itself. Since there was no insurable interest claim was repudiated as per repudiation letter dtd.12.06.2012 & asserted justification in the repudiation. Among such other admissions and denials the answering respondent reveals in detail with regard to the transfer of RC and with regard to the effective DL and other facts. The answering respondent specifically stick on to limitation u/s.24(A) and prays for dismissal of the complaint as the complaint is barred u/s.24(A). For all reasons averred totally prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. The respondent apart from argument relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Negative
- Negative
- As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the said vehicle was covered under the policy risk in the name of its previous owner and not in the name of the present complainant.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether non settlement of the claim amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. The main contention of the respondent is that there is no insurable interest. In this regard the respondent stick on the document Ex.C9 & C10 i.e. RC and Tax card - reveals the vehicle to the date of accident stood in the name of the complainant. This fact is further corroborated by perusal of the document Ex.R5 i.e. B register extract. Despite this contention of the respondent the complainant did not produced any document in corroboration of his claim and to establish it. The policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant subsequent to the purchase in compliance of Sec.157 (1) & (2) of M.V.Act. By this the respondent successfully established his case of no insurable interest on the said vehicle in the name of complainant to the date of accident.
8. Another point raised by the respondent, the respondent insurance company has repudiated the claim on 12.06.2012 as per Ex.R6 & the same has been communicated to the complainant as per Ex.R7 dt.19.06.2012. The present complaint is filed on 24.12.2014 without any application u/s.24 (A) of CP Act for jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Despite this contention the complainant failed to render rebuttal evidence. Hence, it is evident that the complaint is hopelessly barred and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as the complaint is totally barred by limitation. In view of the above discussions complainant has totally failed to establish his case by adding appulsive and cogent evidence. The respondent in support of his contention there is no insurable interest relied on citations RP/129/2009 NCDRC dt.01.09.2014, RP/3158/2008 NCDRC Dt.13.01.2015; RP/4444/2012 NCDRC Dt.20.01.2015; RP/3160/2013 NCDRC Dt.30.01.2015, while on the point of limitation the respondent relied on RP/2844/2009 NCDRC 16.01.2015; RP/4902/2012 NCDRC Dt.04.02.2015; RP/3416/2014 NCDRC Dt.05.02.2015. In view of the citations relied the complaint is not maintainable interalia complainant is not entitled for any relief much less the relief claimed.
9. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negative.
10. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 17th day of April 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
