2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

    Divisional Office-I, Gogula House,

    9/2 Arundelpet, Guntur-2.                                 …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     31-05-11 in the presence of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, advocate for complainant and of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2  upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act claiming Rs.1,64,265/- towards vehicle damage expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

1.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

One A. Srinivasa Reddy S/o Koti Reddy was the absolute owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7TT 4841 and he insured the said vehicle with the opposite parties.  The policy was valid from 07-03-07 to             06-03-08.   An accident took place on 16-07-07 near Narasannapet of Srikakulam district.   The SHO, Narasannapet PS registered the said accident as Crime No.111/07 and later it was tried as CC 119 of 2007 on the file of JMFC, Narasannapet.   The said Srinivasa Reddy sold the said vehicle to the complainant along with insurance coverage.   The said Srinivasa Reddy submitted all necessary documents to the opposite party after the accident.   The opposite parties did not settle the claim on the ground that the vehicle was driven by its cleaner.   CC 119/07 on the file of JMFC, Narasannapet was dismissed.   The ownership of the said vehicle was transferred to the complainant on 23-03-10.   The said Srinivasa Reddy spent lot of money for repairs and in attending to the office of the opposite party, sending legal notices and suffered mental agony.  The attitude of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

1. The contention of the opposite parties in brief is hereunder:

    The complainant is not a consumer under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction.   The complainant is a stranger to the contract of insurance and had no insurable interest on the date of accident.   There is no privity of contract between the opposite party and the complainant.   The liability of the opposite party is contractual but not statutory.   After receiving intimation of accident the opposite party appointed                    Mr. T. Srimannarayna as spot surveyor to note down the damage.   Basing on the report of spot surveyor the opposite parties appointed Mr. N. Mallikarjuna Rao to submit final report who inturn assessed the damage at Rs.75,444/-.   The opposite parties repudiated the claim as the said vehicle was driving by the cleaner at the time of accident.   The opposite parties requested the previous owner Srinivasa Reddy to submit driving license of the person who caused the accident.   The said Srinivasa Reddy somehow or other postponed the matter without submitting the driving license.   As the complainant purchased the said vehicle on 23-03-10 the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.  

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-14 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-7 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complainant has any insurable interest in the policy?
3. Whether there is privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties?
4. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
6. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

1.      One A. Srinivasa Reddy was the owner of the vehicle bearing NO.AP7TT 4841.

2.      Ownership of the said vehicle was transferred in favour of the complainant on 23-03-10 (Ex.A-14).

1. Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy insured the vehicle with the opposite parties.
2. The said vehicle met with accident on 16-07-07.
3. On the date of accident the insurance policy taken by                     Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy was in force (Ex.B-2).
4. The SHO, Narasannapet PS registered the said accident as Crime No.111/07 (Ex.B-1).
5. Cheparthy Koteswara Rao and Khaduluri Bulli Babu in                 CC 119/07 on the file of JMFC, Narasannapet were acquitted on 03-08-09 (Ex.B-7).

7.  POINTS 1 TO 3:-     on the date of accident i.e., on 16-07-07 the complainant is not owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 7TT 4841.  The relevant portion in the affidavit of the complainant is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “I submit that A. Srinivasa Reddy S/o Kotireddy is the owner of Lorry No.AP 7TT 4841 and the same was insured by the opposite party and a cover note was issued for a period of 07-03-07 to 06-03-08 and during that period unfortunately accident was taken place on 16-07-07 and to that effect a crime was registered as No.111/07 of Narasannapet P.S., Srikakulam District and later on the same was numbered as CC.No.119/07 on the file of I Class Judicial Magistrate of Narasannapeta.

                The said crime was registered under 304 A IPC and under Section 180, 181 of M.V.Act alleging that A1 cleaner was driving instead of A2 the driver of the vehicle.   Later the Hon’ble Court discharged the both dismissing the complaint against the accused A1 & A2 and not found guilty of the allegation that cleaner A1 drove the vehicle instead of A2 in a rash and negligence manner and caused the accident.   The said vehicle owner A. Srinivasa Reddy S/o Kotireddy sold the said vehicle to me along with insurance coverage claims etc.

                The said A. Srinivasa Reddy after the said accident the vehicle insurance was claimed by submitting all necessary documents but the opposite party did not settle the claim under the allegation that vehicle was driven by A1 though the claimant A. Srinivasa Reddy reported that the vehicle driven by driver A2 only”.        

8.     The averments in para 3 of complaint revealed that it was             Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy who incurred expenses for repairing the vehicle but not the complainant.   Ex.B-2 policy was in between the opposite parties and Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy (original owner of the vehicle).  Ex.A-14 revealed that the complainant became the owner of the vehicle on 23-03-10.  It can therefore be said that the complainant has no insurable interest besides privity of contract.  

9.     In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Davinder Singh 2008 (1) ALD 42 SC it was held,

                “different considerations would arise in a case of this nature, as the Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was concerned only with a question as to whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant or not.   A right on the part of the Insurance Company not to pay the amount of insurance would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  It in certain situation may be bound to pay the claim made by the third party; if the same is filed before a forum created under the Motor Vehicles Act.   But defence may be held to the justified before a different forum where the question raised is required to be considered in a different manner”.

10.   In Omprakash Sharma vs. Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and others 2008 (3) CPR 240 (NC)

“As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had      not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no       locus         standi to file the complaint.   Repudiation of claim by the         insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service”. 

11.    In Lali Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2010 (2) CPR 57  (SCDRC)

        “In our considered opinion, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum as the complainant appellant was the purchaser of the vehicle and since in insurance papers, she was not the insured person, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated and had the complaint would have been filed by Gautam Kumar, the position would have been different one”. 

12.   Taking a clue from the above decisions, it can be inferred that the complainant has no insurable interest on the date of accident, has no privity of contract with the opposite parties on the date of accident and as such is not a consumer under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.   In view of afore mentioned discussions, these points are answered in favour of opposite parties.          

13.  POINTS 4 & 5:-    In view of findings on points 1 to 3, it cannot be said that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   Hence, these points are answered against the complainant.

14.  POINT No.6:-  In the complaint  the complainant averred as follows:

“The said A. Srinivasa Reddy after the accident the vehicle insurance was claimed by submitting all necessary documents but the opposite party did not settle the claim under the allegation that vehicle was driven by A1 though the claimant A. Srinivasa Reddy reported that the vehicle was driving by driver A2 only.    After the acquittal of both the accused in CC.119/07, Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy preferred a claim once again on 08-08-09”.  The said averments revealed that the complainant was aware of repudiation of claim by the opposite parties.   Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy did not choose to file any complaint before this Forum for the reasons best known to him.   The complainant intended to try his luck before this Forum, as the court fee payable was very less.    It can therefore be inferred that the claim is a vexatious one.   Under those circumstances dismissing the complaint with costs will meet the ends of justice.

In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to the opposite parties within six weeks.

Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 9th day of June, 2011.     

Sd/-XXX                                   Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:

                                                                                              Sd/-XXX

                                                                                PRESIDENT