BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 07^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

ORDERS ON IA

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

         Complainant has filed IA u/o 35(1)(c)  of the C.P.Act 2019 to grant leave to the complainant to file the complaint jointly.

         2.      The OP has filed their version as objection to this IA. We have heard the arguments.

3. The only point that arise for our consideration is

1. Whether IA is liable to be allowed:
2. What order?

4.      Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

5. The 2^nd complainant was the RC owner of Maruthi Swift DZire car bearing No.KA-27-C-0471(passenger carrying vehicle) same was insured with the OP vide policy No.D064496746/16052022 valid from 18.05.2022 to 17.08.2022 by the 2^nd complainant.
6. Complainant further submits that the 2^nd complainant has sold the said vehicle to the 1^st complainant and has transferred the RC book of the said vehicle to his name from the RTO department.
7. 1^st complainant has appointed a driver Mr.Lohith Prasad E., S/o. Eshwar Prasad K.C., to run his vehicle. He was having valid and effective driving licence valid from 26.07.2016 to 27.07.2036 for LMV. 
8. The complainant further submits that on 21.07.2022 when the driver was driving the above said vehicle met with an accident by colliding with the KSRTC bus at BB Main Road, In front of BSF, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Due to the said accident driver died on the spot  and vehicle was fully damaged. Yelahanka traffic police have registered the case in crime No.153/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 2679, 304(a) of IPC.
9. The complainant has intimated the same to the OP.  OP has directed the complainant 1 to submit all the documents. At that time complainant No.1 came to know that the policy was still in the name of the complainant NO.2.  As the policy was in force and is in valid, it is the duty of the OP to release the claim amount to the complainant NO.1, but the OP has not responded. Hence complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.10.2022 to the OP, but OP has neither complied the notice nor replied to the said notice.
10. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP that the complaint filed by the complainants is not at all maintainable and the application filed by them to permit them to file the complaint jointly is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed along with the complaint.
11. It is the specific case of the OP that the 2^nd complainant being the registered owner having obtained the policy in relating to the vehicle involved in the accident had sold the insured vehicle in favour of 1^st complainant and the first complainant is the subsequent purchaser. The 1^st complainant though had obtained the possession of the insured vehicle had got transferred the RC in his favour and had failed to obtain transfer of policy of insurance in respect of the subject insured vehicle as such the complaint jointly preferred by transferee and transferor is not maintainable. There exists no privity of contract in so far as 1^st complainant is concerned. In view of the fact that he has not obtained the transfer of policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle involved in this complaint.  The complainant sold the vehicle to the 2^nd complainant with effect from 18.05.2022 and he was not the registered owner of the subject vehicle as on the date of accident that occurred on 21.07.2022. There existed no cause of action in respect of complainant No.1 and 2. There is no relationship of the 1^st complainant with the OP. The complainant No.1 had not paid any premium to cover the risk of the insured vehicle nor the opponent had issued a policy of insurance in favour of the 1^st complainant. As such their existed no contract of insurance between the 1^st complainant and the OP. As such the complaint filed by the complainants jointly is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 
12. In support of their contention the complainants have relied on six copies of documents. Document No1 is the R.C. book in the name of the complainant No.2. Document No.2 is the copy of the insurance policy, document No.3 is the copy of R.C. book in the name of 1^st complainant, permit and fitness certificate of the said vehicle. And copy of the rent agreement and copy of driving license of the driver Lohith Prasad and document No.6 is the copy of the FIR and 7 is the copy of legal notice.
13. The complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1^st complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant No.1 for the deficiency of service, mental agony and hardship given by the OP to the first complainant.
14. It is clear from the documents produced by the complainants themselves that the complainant No.2 was the owner of Maruthi Swift DZire car bearing No. KA-27-C-0471(passenger carrying vehicle) the said vehicle was insured with OP and the policy was valid from 18.05.2022 till 17.08.2020. The 2^nd complainant has sold the vehicle in favour of the 1^st complainant and the 1^st complainant has got transferred the RC book of the said vehicle to his name from the RTO department. He has also obtained permit from the concerned authorities and he has become the RC owner of the vehicle since 18.05.2022 and the RC stands in the name of the 1^st complainant.
15. It is further clear from the documents that the 1^st complainant has appointed a driver by name Lohith Prasad E to run his vehicle and he was holding valid driving license from 26.07.2016 till 27.07.2036 for LMV.  The vehicle was met with an accident by hitting against the KSRTC bus on 21.07.2022 at BB Main road, Yelahanka Bangalore. The driver died on the spot itself and the Maruthi Swift DZire vehicle was fully damaged. The complaint was registered in CR No.153/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304(a) of IPC and FIR is also filed.  After that the complainant 1 came to know that the insurance policy which was valid and in force was still in the name of 2^nd complainant.
16. It is the specific case of the complainants that as the policy was in force and it is valid it is the duty of the OP to release the claim amount in favour of the complainant No.1.
17. Admittedly the 2^nd complainant who has sold the vehicle in favour of 1^st complainant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident since the RC was transferred in the name of the 1^st complainant after purchase of the vehicle from the 2^nd complainant. Even though the RC was transferred in the name of the 1^st complainant he has not made any effort to get the insurance policy in his name in respect of this vehicle. The policy was continued in the name of the second complainant and it stands in the name of the 2^nd complainant on the date of the accident.  When the 1^st complainant even though owner of the vehicle was not holding the valid insurance policy on the date of the accident the OP is not at all liable to pay any amount to the 1^st complainant as he is not having policy in his name. The 2^nd complainant is not the owner of the vehicle but having the policy in his name on the date of the accident and there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the OP.
18. Under these circumstances the very joint complaint filed by the complainants are not at all maintainable and both the complainants are not entitle for any reliefs claimed in this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. therefore we answer the above point in the negative and pass the following;

ORDER

      IA filed u/o 35(1)(c)  of the C.P.Act 2019 is hereby dismissed. The complaint is rejected as not maintainable.     

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 07^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

ORDERS ON IA

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

         Complainant has filed IA u/o 35(1)(c)  of the C.P.Act 2019 to grant leave to the complainant to file the complaint jointly.

         2.      The OP has filed their version as objection to this IA. We have heard the arguments.

3. The only point that arise for our consideration is

1. Whether IA is liable to be allowed:
2. What order?

4.      Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: As per order

REASONS

5. The 2^nd complainant was the RC owner of Maruthi Swift DZire car bearing No.KA-27-C-0471(passenger carrying vehicle) same was insured with the OP vide policy No.D064496746/16052022 valid from 18.05.2022 to 17.08.2022 by the 2^nd complainant.
6. Complainant further submits that the 2^nd complainant has sold the said vehicle to the 1^st complainant and has transferred the RC book of the said vehicle to his name from the RTO department.
7. 1^st complainant has appointed a driver Mr.Lohith Prasad E., S/o. Eshwar Prasad K.C., to run his vehicle. He was having valid and effective driving licence valid from 26.07.2016 to 27.07.2036 for LMV. 
8. The complainant further submits that on 21.07.2022 when the driver was driving the above said vehicle met with an accident by colliding with the KSRTC bus at BB Main Road, In front of BSF, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Due to the said accident driver died on the spot  and vehicle was fully damaged. Yelahanka traffic police have registered the case in crime No.153/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 2679, 304(a) of IPC.
9. The complainant has intimated the same to the OP.  OP has directed the complainant 1 to submit all the documents. At that time complainant No.1 came to know that the policy was still in the name of the complainant NO.2.  As the policy was in force and is in valid, it is the duty of the OP to release the claim amount to the complainant NO.1, but the OP has not responded. Hence complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.10.2022 to the OP, but OP has neither complied the notice nor replied to the said notice.
10. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP that the complaint filed by the complainants is not at all maintainable and the application filed by them to permit them to file the complaint jointly is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed along with the complaint.
11. It is the specific case of the OP that the 2^nd complainant being the registered owner having obtained the policy in relating to the vehicle involved in the accident had sold the insured vehicle in favour of 1^st complainant and the first complainant is the subsequent purchaser. The 1^st complainant though had obtained the possession of the insured vehicle had got transferred the RC in his favour and had failed to obtain transfer of policy of insurance in respect of the subject insured vehicle as such the complaint jointly preferred by transferee and transferor is not maintainable. There exists no privity of contract in so far as 1^st complainant is concerned. In view of the fact that he has not obtained the transfer of policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle involved in this complaint.  The complainant sold the vehicle to the 2^nd complainant with effect from 18.05.2022 and he was not the registered owner of the subject vehicle as on the date of accident that occurred on 21.07.2022. There existed no cause of action in respect of complainant No.1 and 2. There is no relationship of the 1^st complainant with the OP. The complainant No.1 had not paid any premium to cover the risk of the insured vehicle nor the opponent had issued a policy of insurance in favour of the 1^st complainant. As such their existed no contract of insurance between the 1^st complainant and the OP. As such the complaint filed by the complainants jointly is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 
12. In support of their contention the complainants have relied on six copies of documents. Document No1 is the R.C. book in the name of the complainant No.2. Document No.2 is the copy of the insurance policy, document No.3 is the copy of R.C. book in the name of 1^st complainant, permit and fitness certificate of the said vehicle. And copy of the rent agreement and copy of driving license of the driver Lohith Prasad and document No.6 is the copy of the FIR and 7 is the copy of legal notice.
13. The complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1^st complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant No.1 for the deficiency of service, mental agony and hardship given by the OP to the first complainant.
14. It is clear from the documents produced by the complainants themselves that the complainant No.2 was the owner of Maruthi Swift DZire car bearing No. KA-27-C-0471(passenger carrying vehicle) the said vehicle was insured with OP and the policy was valid from 18.05.2022 till 17.08.2020. The 2^nd complainant has sold the vehicle in favour of the 1^st complainant and the 1^st complainant has got transferred the RC book of the said vehicle to his name from the RTO department. He has also obtained permit from the concerned authorities and he has become the RC owner of the vehicle since 18.05.2022 and the RC stands in the name of the 1^st complainant.
15. It is further clear from the documents that the 1^st complainant has appointed a driver by name Lohith Prasad E to run his vehicle and he was holding valid driving license from 26.07.2016 till 27.07.2036 for LMV.  The vehicle was met with an accident by hitting against the KSRTC bus on 21.07.2022 at BB Main road, Yelahanka Bangalore. The driver died on the spot itself and the Maruthi Swift DZire vehicle was fully damaged. The complaint was registered in CR No.153/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304(a) of IPC and FIR is also filed.  After that the complainant 1 came to know that the insurance policy which was valid and in force was still in the name of 2^nd complainant.
16. It is the specific case of the complainants that as the policy was in force and it is valid it is the duty of the OP to release the claim amount in favour of the complainant No.1.
17. Admittedly the 2^nd complainant who has sold the vehicle in favour of 1^st complainant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident since the RC was transferred in the name of the 1^st complainant after purchase of the vehicle from the 2^nd complainant. Even though the RC was transferred in the name of the 1^st complainant he has not made any effort to get the insurance policy in his name in respect of this vehicle. The policy was continued in the name of the second complainant and it stands in the name of the 2^nd complainant on the date of the accident.  When the 1^st complainant even though owner of the vehicle was not holding the valid insurance policy on the date of the accident the OP is not at all liable to pay any amount to the 1^st complainant as he is not having policy in his name. The 2^nd complainant is not the owner of the vehicle but having the policy in his name on the date of the accident and there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the OP.
18. Under these circumstances the very joint complaint filed by the complainants are not at all maintainable and both the complainants are not entitle for any reliefs claimed in this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. therefore we answer the above point in the negative and pass the following;

ORDER

      IA filed u/o 35(1)(c)  of the C.P.Act 2019 is hereby dismissed. The complaint is rejected as not maintainable.