Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/104/2022

C.H.Narayanaswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,ICICI Lambard General Insruance company limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.Venkatesh Shilpi

25 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:104/2022

DATED: 25/05/2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                          Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri C.H.Narayanaswamy S/o Late R.Hanumaiah,  Aged about 64 years, 5th Cross, Jogimatti Road,     (Rep.By Sri.B.Venkatesha Shilpi, Advocate)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General, Nibhaya Vaade, And Reliance Broking Ltd., Ullal Main Road, Bangalore.   (Ex-parte)   2. Sri Shivakumar. B.S S/o Boraiah, Aged about 60 years, No.103, 6" Main Road, 2" Phase, 4" Block, B SK 3™ Stage, Bangalore-85   (In person)

 

:JUDGEMENT:

 

Order delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

 

The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for seeking the reliefs to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.99,133.51/- to the complainant towards vehicle repair charge with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony for deficiency in service of OP No.1 and grant cost and other reliefs deems fit under circumstances of the case by allowing complaint in the interest of justice.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint:

The complainant is the owner of Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg. No:KA-42-M-0077. That originally one Shivakumar.B who is the opponent No.2 was the owner of the above said vehicle vide cover note No.195926083 valid from 14-03-2020 to 13-03-2021. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant and RC has been transferred in the name of the complainant on 13-08-2020. That due to Covid-19 the insurance policy was not got transferred in the name complainant, but insurance policy was force.

 

3. Complainant further submits that, the relatives of complainant with his permission took the above said car on
09-11-2020 for the photo shoot as marriage of Mahesh was fixed on 25-11-2020. When the relatives of complainant returning after photo shoot from Honnavara on 10-11-2020, at about 1.00 am, near Chennakoppa Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The driver of the above said vehicle drove the same and rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the right side tree. Due to the accident one of the inmates of the vehicle was died at spot and others were injured and the above said vehicle was badly damaged. The case was registered by the Sagar Rural Police Station with Cri. No: 360/2020. Then the complainant got repaired the above said vehicle at Mahanth Motors, Shimoga and spend Rs.99,133.51/- towards repairs of above said vehicle.

 

4. Complainant stated that, the complainant have given the requisition along with vehicle repair bills to the OP-1 insurance company as the policy was force on the date of accident. But the opponent No.1 Company has refused to settle the claim of complainant by letter dated 21-02-2021. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complainant is suffering mental agony. Hence filed this complaint.

 

5. This commission after registering this complaint ordered for issuance of notice to opponents, Notice duly served to OPs. As on order dated 30/08/2022 OP-1 placed ex-parte, OP-2 appeared party in person and filed version.

6. OP-2 stated in the version that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts and hence liable to be dismissed in limine. That admittedly this opposite party is neither a proper or necessary party to the above complaint. All other allegations not specifically traversed herein and against the interest of this opposite party is denied as false and must be put to strict proof of the same. That from the reading of the complaint there is no any attribution or claim or complaint as defined in The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against me in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the complaint or the prayer/ relief or claimed and hence on this ground alone the above complaint is liable to be dismissed as against him.

7. OP-2 Further submits that,  it is admitted by the complainant in para 5 of his complaint that he is impleaded in the above case as the second opposite party as a formal party as the insurance of the said vehicle purchased by this opposite party stands in this opposite party’s name on the date of the accident though this opposite party had long sold it and admittedly the said Insurance was not transferred in the name of the complainant as on the date of accident as admitted by him in para 1 of the complaint. That in view of the admission made by the complaint in para 1 of his complain, as, That Due To Covid-19 The Insurance Policy Was Not Transferred In The Name Of The Complainant, But Insurance Policy Was In Force” on the date of accident shows that he was not A Consumer, as on the date of accident: as he had not hired or availed of any service for a consideration from the first opposite party for which he has paid or promised or partly paid and  partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and he is also not a beneficiary of such, under the said Insurance.

8. The complainant is neither a consumer or beneficiary under the said insurance policy issued by the first opposite party, the above complainant is not maintainable and hence on this ground also the above complaint is liable is liable to be dismissed.

        9. Complainant and opponent-2 filed their evidence by way of Affidavit, the documents produced by complainant marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 and no documents produced by Opponent-2. Both complainant and OP-2 filed their written arguments. Heard oral arguments of both side.

 

        10. On the assessment of the above facts, the following points arise for our consideration Viz.

1. Whether the complainant further proves any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed in the complaint?
3. What order?

11. The findings of this commission on the Points for consideration are as below.

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per the final order for the following.

REASONS

12. Point No.1 & 2: The allegation made in the complaint, version of OP No.1 and the evidence in the form of affidavit shows that, the complainant is the owner of Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg. No:KA-42-M-0077. That originally one Shivakumar.B who is the opponent No.2 was the owner of the above said vehicle vide cover note No.195926083 valid from 14-03-2020 to 13-03-2021. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant and RC has been transferred in the name of the complainant on 13-08-2020. That due to Covid-19 the insurance policy was not got transferred in the name complainant, but insurance policy was force.

 

13. Complainant further submits that, the relatives of complainant with his permission took the above said car on
09-11-2020 for the photo shoot as marriage of Mahesh was fixed on 25-11-2020. When the relatives of complainant returning after photo shoot from Honnavara on 10-11-2020, at about 1.00 am, near Chennakoppa Village, Sagar Taluk, Shivamogga District. The driver of the above said vehicle drove the same and rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the right side tree. Due to the accident one of the inmates of the vehicle was died at spot and others were injured and the above said vehicle was badly damaged. The case was registered by the Sagar Rural Police Station with Cri. No: 360/2020. Then the complainant got repaired the above said vehicle at Mahanth Motors, Shimoga and spend Rs.99,133.51/- towards repairs of above said vehicle. The complainant have given the requisition along with vehicle repair bills to the OP-1 insurance company as the policy was force on the date of accident. But the opponent No.1 Company has refused to settle the claim of complainant by letter dated 21-02-2021.

 

14. In this regard, we are carefully perused of Ex.A-8 Policy copy of the ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vaade Insurance Company issued the four wheeler package policy. This policy copy clearly reveals the truth that, this policy is having contents the insured name as
Shivakumar.B. as such circumstances it is not possible to issue the policy amount in the name of complainant, RC has been transferred in the name of the complainant on 13/08/2020, the insurance policy was not got transferred in the name of complaint the insurance policy is in the name of Shivakumar.B. Insurance policy was force.

 

15. So far as above fact is concerned, we perused the Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-8 are clearly reveals the truth that, The RC has been transferred in the name of complainant on 04/08/2020 after registration transferred the RC in the name of complainant. The accident occurred on 10/11/2020 after 2 month 7 days the insurance policy was not got transferred in the name of complainant. The complainant did not made any effort to transferred insurance policy in his name.

 

16. As per the settled laws says that section 157 (2) of MV Act 1998 and its subsequent amended envisage as  here that, transferred shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in prescribed to the insurer for making necessary change in regard to the fact of the transfer in the certificate of Insurance.

 

The following Citations are relevant to the present case.

Reported in Central Government Act Section 157 in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988:

157. Transfer of certificate of insurance…..

(1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this 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 thereto, 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. 1[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance. (2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.

Citation reported in Central Government Act Section 157(2) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed from to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessity changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.

Reported in 2008 (3) CPR 240 (NC) NCDRC Om Prakash Sharma V/s Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Others.

Where car insured met with accident, repudiation of claim by insurance company was held justified on petitioner not having transferred policy in his name till date of accident.

Reported in 2010(3) CPR 138 State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Ravinder Kumar.

When no steps were taken for transfer of policy after transfer of vehicle, transferee is not entitled to get benefit of insurance policy.

17. In the above observation it is crystal clear that, Sec.157 (2) of the Motor vehicle Act and Indian Motor Traffic Regulation GR-17 and the circular issued in the 1994 which are referred to by Punjab state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh are of no assistance of the complainant for the above reasons. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant has not made out to ground to allow the complaint. Hence, we considered point No.1 & 2 are negative.

 

18. Point No.3:  In view of the discussion, we proceed to pass the following.

 

  

::  ORDER  ::

         The present complaint filed by the complainant Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the opponents is hereby dismissed.

          Communicate the order to both the parties.

 (Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 25^th May 2023.)

 

                                                                      Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri C.H.Narayanaswamy S/o Late R.Hanumaiah by way of

            Affidavit of evidence.

Wetness examined behalf of opponents:

DW-1:- Dr. B Shivakumar S/o B Boraiah, by way of Affidavit of

            evidence

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR copy
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint copy
03	Ex-A-3:-	Vehicle verified report copy
04	Ex-A-4:-	Letter dated 19/11/2020
05	Ex-A-5:-	True copy of D.L. (MS Prasanna)
06	Ex-A-6:-	True copy of RC
07	Ex-A-7:-	True copy of Clearance certificate
08	Ex-A-8:-	True copy of Insurance policy
09	Ex-A-9:-	True copy of ICICI Lombard cover note No.195926083
10	Ex-A-10:-	Computerised True copy pollution under check centre
11	Ex.A-11:-	Tax Invoice Mahanth Motors Recipient ID 2901542422
12	Ex.A-12:-	Copy of ICICI Lombard Claim Status notification letter dated 02/16/2021.
13	Ex.A-13:-	Copy of Vehicles particulars

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

 

Nil

 

 

                                                                     Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

GM*