Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/358/2015

Mallikarjun V Karadiguddi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Co Lt - Opp.Party(s)

S S Patil

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.358/2015

                     Date of filing: 20/06/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal:29/11/2016

P R E S E N T :-

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

COMPLAINANT       -

Shri. Mallikarjun Varteppa Karadiguddi, Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.1216/B, Bangar Galli, Gokak-591306, Dist. Belgaum.                  (Rep. by Sri.S.S. Patil, Adv.)

- V/S -

OPPOSITE PARTY   -

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Opp.Range Forest Office, Bus Stand Road, Gokak, Represented by Divisional Manager, Ramdev Galli, Belgaum.                   (Rep. by Sri.V.B. Malannavar, Adv.)

JUDGEMENT

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directed to pay Rs.80,000/- with 18% interest from the date of accident of the vehicle and Rs.5,000/- towards the damages and loss and any other reliefs etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is contended that, the complainant is the owner of Maruti Zen LXI bearing Reg.No.MH-02/AQ-8306 and the vehicle was duly insured with the opponent policy No.610201/31/14/ 6100002661 under the head of private car policy B package for the period from 09.08.2014 to 08.08.2015. On 16.12.2014 near Jalal Galli, Gokak at about 7.45 P.M. one bullock cart came on the road without any signal the complainant suddenly lost control over his vehicle and dashed to the back side of the bullock cart and the vehicle was completely damaged and thereafter the complainant left his vehicle to Shantesha Motors Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum authorized dealer and service of Maruti Suzuki Motors for repair. The complainant might have incurred Rs.60,000/- towards repairs of the said vehicle and the said fact was duly intimated to the opponent and the officials i.e. Surveyor duly visited the spot and gathered all information including the details of vehicle and insurance policies and the driving licenses of the driver and the said surveyor intimated the complainant to shift the vehicle from the spot. Accordingly, the complainant with the help of crane operating vehicles shifted to Shantesha Motors Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum for repair and the surveyor by name shri.Aacharya visited the showroom and took the estimated charges of repairs as supplied by Shantesha motors Pvt. Ltd., and took some instructions from the complainant went hurriedly by informing the complainant to get repair the said vehicle and that, the opponent will reimburse the repairing and other charges as applicable.

 

          It is contended that, the complainant had insured vehicle with the opponent and also paid the premium on own damages. The complainant while filing the claim before the opponent, the opponent had filed all the relevant documents along with the quotations of expenditure for the damaged vehicle and the earlier owner of the vehicle was Shri.Manohar Shankreppa Mattikalli was recently purchased the vehicle that due to rush of work he could not transfer the policy stands in the name of earlier owner.

 

          It is contended that, the complainant had furnished all the documents which were necessary for the settlement of the claim alongwith the bills worth Rs.60,000/- and sustained loss of Rs.20,000/- towards income from that vehicle. The opponent has repudiated the claim of complainant, due to this the complainant suffered heavy loss and taken loan for said vehicle. The complainant on several occasions requested the opponent insurance company to settle his claim, but he did not settle the claim one or the other pretext. The opponent has repudiated the claim of the complainant, even though the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. The opponent committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicle’s Act and insurance Act and thereby committed the deficiency in service towards the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

         

3.      After receipt of said notice to the Opponent, the Op has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complaint of the complainant does not fall under the provisions of the C.P. Act and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

 

          It is contended that, as per the insurance policy, the insured of Shri.Manohar S. Mattikalli not the complainant as alleged in the complaint and he has incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards repairs and replacements and Rs.5,000/- towards damages etc., are specifically denied by the opponent.  In the instant case the opponent company has engaged the service of One Shri.Pundalik D. Kutre, surveyor of Belagavi to conduct the detailed survey of the damaged vehicle and submitted his Motor Final Survey Report and Bill Check Report dtd:22.01.2015, the opponent assessing the net liability of Rs.20,386/- in terms of the policy. Hence, the insured would have received an amount of Rs.20,386/- from the opponent after submitting the salvage, provided there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 

          It is contended that, the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and both have to abide by the contents of the policy and its liability is strictly governed by the terms, conditions exclusions, definitions, provisions etc., specifically incorporated in the insurance policy issued in the name of the insured and a breach of any of these on the part of the insured then he will not be entitled for any amount under the policy. In this case, the complainant has lodged a claim with the opponent in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle in question, the vehicle was covered under a policy of insurance issued in the name of Shri.Manohar S. Mattikalli and that, the complainant after purchasing the vehicle from him and getting the Registration Certificate Transferred in his name, the complainant did not care to get the insurance policy transferred in his name as required by Law. Hence, as on the date of the alleged accident there was no “Privity of contract” between the complainant and the opponent. The insurance policy in question having lapsed as on the date of transfer of the said vehicle, the claim of the complainant is not sustainable at all. Further section 157 of the M.V. Act provides for a deemed transfer of Certificate of Insurance only in respect of third party only. The complainant, not being a third party, the benefit of the said provision is not available to him. Thus there was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, repudiated the claim of the complainant is fully justifiable and that, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. Hence, the O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.

 

4.      Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case, the documents produced on behalf of the complainant as marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. On behalf of Opponent has not filed any documents. Heard the arguments on both sides. Now, the points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are;

           

1.	Whether Complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Op for not settling the claim?
2.	What Order?

 

 

Our findings to the above points are as under;

 

1. In the Negative.

 

2. As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

 

5.    POINT NO.1:  After perusing the both pleadings and evidence of parties and documents on record. It is admitted fact that, Shri. Mallikarjun Karadiguddi was the owner of the Maruti Zen LXI in question it was registered in his name on 17-07-2006 as per the R.C. (Registration Certificate) produced in this case as marked
Ex.P-1. The Complainant being the owner of the car obtained the insurance policy in his name which is valid from 09-08-2014 to mid night 08-08-2015 which is marked as Ex.P-2. The case of the complainant is that, the Complainant specifically states that he has purchased the Maruti Zen LXI car. But surprisingly the policy has been obtained in the name Manohar S/o Shankarappa Mattikali valid from 09-08-2014 to 08-08-2015 after purchasing the vehicle. As per the contentions of the Complainant still the policy remained in the name of Manohar S/o Shankarappa Mattikali. But, the complainant has failed to prove or placed any documents to show that, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Complainant. The complainant did not care to get the insurance policy transferring the vehicle in the name Complainant on a particular date not disclosed either in the Complaint or in the affidavit. Therefore, in our consider view, the complainant has failed to substantiate with cogent and material documents and acceptable affidavit evidence as such the case as alleged in the complaint and further he has not substantiate Whether the transferee has got insurable interest in policy as per terms and conditions of the policy.  

 

The case of the OP is that, as per the provisions of  U/s 157 of the M.V. Act and the rules made their under the policy has to be transferred in the name of transferee. It is the bounden duty of the transferee to submit fresh proposal form duly filed and signed and by surrendering old policy. In terms of the regulation the transferee has to apply in writing within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer from making necessary changes for issuing fresh certificate of insurance.

 

 It is un-disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident and damages has been claimed under the head of own damages. Of course the vehicle met with an accident on 16-12-2014 after purchase and the policy was renewed and valid till mid night 08^th -08-2015 standing in the name of Manohar S/o Shankarappa Mattikali.  Here in the instant case it is not know why the Complainant kept quite without getting insurance certificate in his name from the date of purchase. The R.C. no doubt revels that name of the Complainant entered as owner. Nevertheless it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to get it transfer the insurance policy in his name. But the policy placed on record stands in the name Mattikali Manohar S/o Shankrappa who is the insured and valid from 09-08-2014 to 08-08-2015. Still the insurance policy was not at all issued in the name Complainant either on the date of filing the Complaint or any subsequent date. For that proposition of law, the Op relied a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586. It has been held by the N.C. and Hon’ble S.C. that, in respect of own damages claim; it is the duty of the transferee to get it transfer the policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer. Here in the instant case, the Complainant has not explained any reasons as to why, he could not get the transfer policy in his name within 14 days or till the date of filing the Complaint. In the light of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions we have no hesitation to hold that, the OP justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, repudiation made by the opponent is justified and proper and it is not an amount of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and further, that, the opponent is not guilty of deficiency in service. The repudiation of the claim is just and proper. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.

 

6.      Point No.2:- After careful consideration and our findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

             (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  29^th day of November, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.