This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      17-08-11 in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri Ch.Yagna Narayana, advocate for OP1, OP2 is set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER: 

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions on opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay Rs.98,000/- towards vehicle repair covered under policy along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of accident till realization and Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of complaint to the complainant.

2.      The brief facts of complaint are as follows: 

                The complainant has purchased Indica Car bearing No.AP7 AJ1113 from 2^nd opposite party on 04-08-07.  The 2^nd opposite party insured the car with the 1^st opposite party on 23-03-07 under policy No.620901/31/06/01/00002546 covering all type of risk to the vehicle which is and in force upto 22-03-08.  The complainant’s vehicle referred supra met with an accident on 22-09-07 at Reliance Petrol Bunk, Gaddipadu and got damaged. The complainant informed about the accident to the 1^st opposite party immediately.  The surveyor visited the spot and took photos. The complainant incurred Rs.98,000/- towards repairs of the vehicle.  The bills were sent to the 1^st opposite party for reimbursement as per the terms of policy.  The 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim by a letter dt.02-01-08 on the ground that the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant by the time of accident.  The complainant made his best efforts to convince the 1^st opposite party stating that the policy runs with the vehicle but the opposite parties did not choose to settle the claim.  Hence, the complaint. 

3.      The 1^st opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows:

                The complainant purchased India car bearing No.AP 7AJ1113 from the 2^nd opposite party on 04-08-07 and got registered on the same day.  As per the policy conditions, the policy must be transferred to the new owner within 14 days from the date of purchase.  As per RC and other papers submitted by the surveyor of this opposite party, the vehicle was insured in the name of Mr.K.Sudhakar vide policy No.620901/31/06/ 01/00002546 for the period from 23-03-07 to 23-03-08. The said vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant with effect from 04-08-07 and the vehicle met with an accident on 22-09-07.  At the time of accident, the policy was not transferred in favour of complainant.  This opposite party repudiated the claim in a right manner. There is no necessity to compensate the complainant.   Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part opposite party. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

4.             The 2^nd opposite party is set exparte. The complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A3 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 on behalf of 1^st opposite party were marked.

5.      Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant purchased vehicle in issue i.e., Indica Car bearing No.AP7 AJ1113 from one Mr.K.Sudhakar (2^nd opposite party) and got transferred on his name on 04-08-07 and the same vehicle met with an accident on 22-09-07 and damaged. 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has violated the General Regulation No.17 of All India Motor Tariffs by not transferring the policy in his favour within the stipulated time or till date.

7.             The complainant purchased and got transferred the vehicle on 04-08-07 but failed to transfer the insurance policy. The policy (Ex.B1) is in the name of the previous owner i.e., Mr.K.Sudhakar.  Though the complainant as per the RC (Ex.A1) is the owner of vehicle in issue, his failure to transfer the policy in his name would curtail him from availing the benefits of policy.   

8.             There is a stamp of All India Motor Tariff affixed on the face of insurance policy (Ex.B1), which reads as follows:

                The policy is to be transferred to the new RC owner within 14 days in case of ownership transferred lest the company will not be liable for OD claims.

1.  Section 157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, says 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 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.    

10.              The National Commission in III (2007) CPJ 411 (NC) between United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harinder Kaur, National Commission, New Delhi observed

                   Learned counsel Mr.Kishore Rawat appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that the order passed by the State Commission is on the face of it erroneous and against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., II (1996) ACC 536 (SC) = 1996 ACJ 65 and Rikhi Ram & Anr. Vs. Sukhrania (Smt.) and Ors., II (2003) SLT 62=I(2003) ACC 368 (SC)=(2003) 3 SCC 97.  It is true that the judgment rendered by the State Commission is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases.

                   It is undisputed that after transfer of the car in favour of the deceased Punjab Singh, no steps were taken for transferring the policy as required under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act or as per the rules of the insurance company.

                   On the basis of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid two cases, transferee is not entitled to get the benefit of the insurance policy.      

11.           In view of the violation of General Rule 17 of All India Motor Tariff, and Section 157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act by the complainant, the Forum opines that transfer of vehicle insurance policy in the name of complainant is an obligatory to bind the transferee-insurer.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of August, 2011.    

MEMBER                         MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For 1^st opposite party:

                                                                                            PRESIDENT