Complaint filed on: 31-12-2009<br /> Disposed on: 06-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.3111/2009<br /> DATED THIS THE 6th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainants: - <br /> 1. Smt.Deepa Iyer w/o. Akshya Iyer<br /> Age 25 years, R/at # D-2,<br /> Shivananda apartments,<br /> S G Playa, C.V.Raman Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-73<br /> <br /> 2. Sri. Sunil M.N. S/o. Nagaraj,<br /> Age 25 years, R/at No.3/3A,<br /> Ganesha Block, <br /> Mahalakshmi layout, <br /> Bangalore-96<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> The National Insurance Company Ltd,<br /> (A Govt. of India undertaking),<br /> Divisional office-IX, G-15,<br /> Tech park mall ITPL,<br /> White Field road, Bangalore-06<br /> Represented by its branch manager, <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party are, that the first complainant is the owner of a Maruthi Esteem Car had taken an insurance policy on it from the OP which was valid from 20-5-2008 to 19-5-2009. That he sold the vehicle in favour of the 2nd complainant on 9-9-2008 and registration of said vehicle was also transferred in the name of the 2nd complainant and he was in possession of the vehicle. During the validity of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on9-11-2008 resulting in severe damage and a complaint was also given to the police and had also informed the OP. Damage to the car was estimated at Rs.4,90,000/-. When the first complainant approached the OP and submitted the claim form on 19-2-2009 along with necessary documents as he was the insured with a request to OP to condone the delay in making the claim, the OP repudiated the claim through his letter dated 17-3-2009 on the ground that ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the 2nd OP and time limit fixed for transfer of policy that is 14 days after transfer of ownership had expired. Questioning correctness of the OP refusing to pay insurance amount has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay estimated damages of Rs.4,90,000/- besides paying Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to award costs. <br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version contending that the complainants are not consumers as defined under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and they have no insurable interest against them. OP denying the entitlements of the complainants to claim compensation as claimed in the complaint has stated that the 1st complainant has sold the car to the 2nd complainant on 9-9-2008 and none of them had informed about the transfer of the vehicle. After accident the 2nd complainant approached them for settling the claim then they in a good faith had appointed a surveyor who has assessed the loss including salvage which did not exceed Rs.2,86,711/- but as there was no contract of insurance between them and the 2nd complainant, they did not pay the insurance amount. Contending that the complainants did not inform them about transfer of car within 14 days from the date of transfer are not entitled for any relief and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced a copy of insurance policy, copy of the complaint given to the concerned police and copy of general power of attorney. OP has also produced a copy of policy, copy of the report of valuer, copy of letter he had addressed to the 2nd complainant and then copy of RC book. We have heard the arguments of counsel for both the parties and perused the records. Counsel for the OP has filed written argument. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not reimbursing the loss suffered on account of damage to the car in road traffic accident? <br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the affirmative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: Undisputed facts of the complaint are that, the 1st complainant was the owner of a Maruthi Esteem Car had obtained an insurance policy from the OP insuring the vehicle which was in force from 20-5-2008 to 19-5-2009. That the 1st complainant sold the said car to the 2nd complainant on 9-9-2008 and RC book was also transferred in the name of the 2nd complainant. That the vehicle which stud in the name of the 2nd complainant and which was in possession met with an accident on 9-11-2008 with extensive damage. Then when the 2nd complainant made a claim with the OP-insurance company, the OP through their letter dated 24-12-2008 refused to honour the claim of the 2nd complainant, On the ground that there was no contract between them and the 2nd complainant as on date of accident as the insurance policy had not yet been transferred from in the name of the 1st complainant to the name of the 2nd complainant. Thereafter, the 1st complainant made a claim for paying the insurance amount to the OP which was also repudiated by the OP through their letter dated 17-3-2009. In this letter the OP has stated that as per RC book the ownership of the vehicle is transferred in the name of Mr.Sunil.M.N, as early as on 9-9-2009 as per policy condition the time limit fixed for effecting the transfer in the policy is 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership through the RC book but that is not transferred. Hence holding as on date of accident the 1st complainant did not have insurable interest on the vehicle have refused the claim. Thereafter the former owner and the present owner of the vehicle have filed this complaint against the OP. It is clear from the repudiation letters issued by the OP to these complainants he has refused to pay damages either to the former owner or to the subsequent owner and thereby totally avoided the liability. <br /> <br /> 7. The learned counsel appearing for the OP in the course of arguments has submitted that though the RC book of the vehicle is transferred from the name of the 1st complainant to the name of the 2nd complainant, but insurance policy as on the date of accident had not been transferred in the name of the 2nd complainant, therefore the 2nd complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle therefore the 2nd complainant is not entitled for insurance amount. In support of his argument he has relied upon few decisions reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 221, I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC) and unreported decision of the Hon’ble National Commission delivered in revision petition No.426/2007 dated 13-3-2009 and submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. But having regarding to facts and position of the case, we should see that when the OP repudiated the claim of both the complainants they have joined hands and filed this complaint claiming the insurance amount, on account of extensive damage caused to the vehicle, we do not find any conflict of interest or counter claim between them. Therefore the OP could have paid damages to the insured the 1st complainant or the RC owner that is the 2nd complainant but by not doing so it can not just wash of their hands. In a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I(2009) CPJ 183 the Hon’ble National Commission by referring to GRIO issued by tariff advisory committee on sale of vehicle and benefits under the policy has held on date of transfer of vehicle automatically the insurance policy benefits shall accrue to new owner, when the vehicle is already transferred in the name of transferee in the RTO records, therefore the insurance company is held as liable to pay damages. Therefore in the case on hand, the allegations of delay in not informing the OP about the transfer of RC within 14 days is not tenable and repudiation of the claim of the complainants is not proper. Thus the 1st complainant since has no objection for paying the damages to the 2nd complainant, we find no impediment in granting the relief to the 2nd complainant who has suffered the loss. The complainants have claim that the repair charge was estimated at Rs.4,90,000/- but absolutely they have not produced any documents in proof of that estimation and claim of so much towards damages. Whereas the surveyor appointed by OP has submitted his report assessing on total loss basis at Rs.2,86,711/- which has not been disputed by the complainants. In the absence of any material placed by the complainants to prove the extent of loss they suffered, we do not find any reasons to discard the assessment reached by the surveyor. Insured value of the vehicle in the policy is shown as Rs.3,47,211/-. Hence, having regarding this fact the total loss arrived by the surveyor at Rs.2,86,711/- is accepted and that is to be ordered to be paid to the 2nd complainant, with this, we pass the following order:<br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is allowed. OP is ordered to pay Rs.2,86,711/- to the 2nd complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which, they shall pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. OP shall also pay cost of Rs.3000/- to the 2nd complainant.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 6th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />