IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
Thiru.K.BASKARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
FA.No.87/2014
(As against the order in CC.No 18/2013 dated 3.1.2014 on the file of DCDRF, Erode)
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019
V.Sundararaju,
S/o Venkatachala Gounder,
D.No. 3, Nadu Velampalayam,
Rakkipalayam village, Anaipalayam,
Uthukuli (via), Uthukuli Taluk,
Tiruppur District ..Appellant/complainant
Vs
The Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Branch office 2nd floor,
Parimalam complex
11, E.V.N. Road,
Erode 638 011 ..Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for Appellant/complainant : M/s. S. Kaithamalai Kumaran
Counsel for Respondent/opposite party : M/s Nageswaran & Narichania
This appeal coming up before us for hearing finally on 30.9.2019, and this commission made upon the hearing of the respective counsels, perusing the documents, other records, and the order passed by the District Forum, passed the following order:
Delivered by Dr. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant before the District Forum is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant is that his friend one A.P.V.Narayanarao had taken the vehicle TH 33 R 1388 owned by the complainant to Andhra Pradesh. The said A.P.V.Narayana Rao intended to purchase the vehicle from the complainant. Though the complainant had given NOC issued by RTO Perundurai, his friend could not change the name in Andhrapradesh, hence the vehicle still stands in the name of the complainant. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 16.8.2010 when it was driven by his friend from Visagapattinam to Srikakulam, and got damaged. As per the procedure a complaint was lodged with the Vijaya Nagar District Oothupuram police station by his friend, and a certificate also obtained to that effect. Subsequently, the above accident was informed to the opposite party company, and a surveyor also valued the damage, and the vehicle was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.77,028/- When a claim was made with the opposite party, the same was repudiated on 14.3.2012 by stating that “the complainant had suppressed the fact that he sold the vehicle to his friend Mr.A.P.V.Narayana Rao, and an NOC also has been issued by the complainant”.
The complainant would submit that he is legally the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and the vehicle was also insured at the time of accident only by the complainant and the driver also having valid driving license, therefore, the repudiation by the opposite party is without any sustainable reason which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed a complaint, claiming Rs.1,82,028/- as compensation alongwith 12% interest and cost.
3. The Respondent/ opposite party would submit that necessary applications were moved by the complainant, the transferor to the transferee of the vehicle which met with an accident, before the name being changed infavour of the transferee, Registering Authority, Perundurai, Erode District, also issue NOC dated 23.3.2010, the vehicle to be transferred in the name of the transferr at the RTO of Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. The intimation about the accident also given by the said transferee APV Narayana Rao on 26.8.2010, which clearly established the fact that the complainant was not the owner of the said vehicle at the time of alleged accident. According to the opposite party, a sale could be completed when the possession of moveable goods is handed over to the purchaser. The opposite party has stated that the complainant had no insurable interest over the said vehicle at the time of alleged accident, the repudiation is valid, and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after hearing bothside submissions, and on evaluating the material records, passed an order on merit, holding that the complainant had no insurable interest over the said vehicle at the time of accident, hence dismissed the complaint, against the said order the complainant is before us now as an appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on bothside, perused the material records, and the order impugned, and passed the following points for determination:-
1. Whether the appellant/complainant has established deficiency of service as against the Respondent/opposite party?
2. Whether the appeal has to be allowed on the ground raised by the appellant/complainant?
3. What relief the parties are entitled to ?
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as they were referred before the learned District Forum, Chennai(South).
Point No.1 :
6. The short facts of the complainant is that the vehicle Maruthi Omni car Reg.No. TN 33 R 1388 owned by the complainant was taken by his friend one A.P.V.Narayana Rao intended to purchase the vehicle from the complainant. Though the complainant had given NOC issued by RTO Perundurai, his friend could not change the name of the vehicle in Andhrapradesh, the vehicle still stands in the name of the complainant. It is not in dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 16.8.2010 when the same was driven by the complainant’s friend from Visakapatnam to Srikakulam, and complaint was lodged with the Oothupuram police station, Vijayanagar District by the friend of the complainant for which the certificate was obtained by him subsequently the incident was informed to the opposite party company and a surveyor was also sent by the opposite party to value the damaged. The vehicle got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.77,028/-. When a claim was made with the opposite party, by the complainant, the same was repudiated on 14.3.2012 by stating that, “the complainant had suppressed the fact that he sold the vehicle to his friend Mr. APV. Narayana Rao and an NOC also have been issued by the complainant”.
7. The complainant has stated that he has been the owner of the vehicle and driver was having valid driving license. Therefore the repudiation of the opposite party is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the complainant is claiming Rs. 1,82,028/- as damages with 12% interest p.a and also costs. The opposite party has not disputed that the fact that the vehicle has got insurance coverage on the date of the accident which took place on 16.8.2010 in Andhra Pradesh State. The only defence raised by the opposite party is that the complainant informed the registered authority, Perundurai, Erode District for issuing NOC dated 23.3.2010 to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of his friend so as to Registrar, the same at RTO office, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.
8. On the aforesaid circumstances, according to the opposite party, the sale of the vehicle was completed when the vehicle was handed over to his friend. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode passed the impugned order, whereby the complaint was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that there was no transfer of ownership of the vehicle to A.P.V.Narayana Rao, friend of the complainant. It is seen that the sale was not effected by registereing the vehicle in the name of APV.Narayana Rao, merely because NOC was issued to transfer the vehicle., it cannot be construed as transfer of the title of the vehicle in favour of the proposed purchaser APV.Narayana Rao and further there was no claim made by the said Narayana Rao, either in Tamilnadu or in Andhra Pradesh. On the said circumstances, the repudiation made by the opposite party is totally unreasonable and also not sustainable in law.
9. In the decision reported in Vijayan M.Aingoth Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd 2016 (1) CPJ 446, 2016 (1) C.P.R. 262 .
Referring the Supreme Court complete insulation Pvt Ltd Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, (1996) I SCC 221 and also the decision in G.Govindan Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 754 “h it has been categorically held that there being no transfer of policy in the name of the petitioner/transferee he had no insurable interest in the vehicle and the respondent/opposite party had no liability to indemnify the complainant”.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has taken a clear view that there should be insurable interest and no one can claim any compensation from the insurance company without insurable interest. Having gone through the order rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we are of the considered view that the said decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred in the order are only in favour of the claim of the complainant, since the complainant had not transferred the ownership of the vehicle in favour of his friend, Mr.A.P.V.Narayana Rao of Andhra Pradesh on the date of the accident or subsequently. There was only a proposal from the complainant to sell the vehicle from in favour of his friend A.P.V.Narayana Rao, and the said Narayana Rao was also willing to purchase the same in furtherance of the proposal, no objective certificate was also obtained from RTO Perundurai. However it is crystal clear that the complainant has been the owner of the vehicle and also got insurance coverage for the vehicle, even at the date of the accident which took place on 16.8.2010 and subsequently. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pushpa and others Vs Shankuntala and others reported in MANU/SC/0032/2011 referring section 2(30), 50, 50(1), 50(2), and 159 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has given a detailed interpretation with regard to ownership of Motor vehicle under sec. 2(30) of the Act, which clearly says that ‘owner’ means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant has been the owner of the Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No. TN-33-R-1388 and the same was not transferred in the name of Narayana Rao or any other person. Hence, the short point for determination is, whether the complainant has got insurable interest in the vehicle to seek compensation. It is an admitted fact that being the owner of the vehicle, the complainant, he took insurance policy for the vehicle and on 16.8.2010, the date of the accident there was only a proposal to sell the vehicle by the complainant to his friend APV.Narayana Rao. In view of the proposal to sell the vehicle, NOC was obtained by the complainant, however which RTO towards selling the vehicle cannot be considered as the sale in favour of Narayana Rao and therefore only the complainant has been the owner of the vehicle, on the date of the accident and subsequently, even the said Narayana Rao has not made any claim, as he held no insurable right.
12. On the aforesaid circumstances, merely based on the proposal of selling the vehicle by the complainant to his friend Narayana Rao, the opposite party cannot deny the rights of the complainant. As the complainant was the owner of the vehicle on date of the accident and also subsequent to the date of the accident, merely because there was proposal to sell the vehicle by the complainant to his friend, the opposite party cannot dispute the legitimate rights of the complainant, without understanding the legal proposition, hence we answer for point No.1, in favour of the appellant/complainant and against the Respondent/complainant.
Point No 2 and 3 :-
13. The repudiation letter dated 14.3.2012, copy sent by the opposite party to APV. Narayana Rao of Srikakulam is also marked as Ex.A.1. it is seen that a copy of the letter was also sent to the complainant herein. Copy of the Registration certificate of the vehicle stands in the name of complainant Mr.Venkatachalam Gounder, has been marked as Ex.A.2, and the insurance policy dated 11.1.2010 has been marked as Ex.A.3. It is a case of the complainant that the vehicle was given by the A.P.V.Narayana Rao who had valid driving license for which the Xerox copy of the license is marked as Ex.A.4. Ex.A.5 is the copy of the certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Bogapuram village, Vijaya Nagar District stating that the Maruti Omni van met with an accident and stated the details of the accident. Ex.A.6 is the supporting document(receipt) issued by Varun Motors Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam for repairing the vehicle after the accident as per this document, the amount paid towards repairing the vehicle is stated as Rs.77,028/-. In the consumer complaint, the complainant had stated that Rs. 77,028/- for repairing charges of the vehicle. In support of the contention, receipts issued by Varun Motors Pvt Ltd, for Rs. 77,028/- paid by the complainant towards repair charges is produced. Ex.B.1 is the motor Insurance Certificate cum policy schedule issue by the opposite party wherein the complainant V.Sundararaju has stated as insured whereby the vehicle Omni car bearing Regn.number TN 33 R 1388 has been insured by the complainant. Ex.B.2 is a letter addressed by Narayana Rao to the opposite party wherein he has stated that the said Narayana Rao had taken the vehicle from VisakaPatnam to Srikakulam and which met with accident, near Polipalli village, Andhra Pradesh. The challan and receipts given by the Traffic police, Hyderabad has been marked as Ex.B.3. Ex.B.4 is the original insurance policy issued in the name of the complainant Mr.V.Sundararaju. There is no allegation or to show that evidence that there was any similar claim made by Mr.A.P.V.Narayana Rao. The evidence on record produced by both side would show that the ownership of the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant and after the accident, the complainant spent Rs. 77,028 /- towards repairing the vehicle.
14. There is no contra evidence on the side of the opposite party, hence we find it reasonable to award a compensation of Rs.77,028/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Though the complainant has sought Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and sufferings and for financial loss for Rs.50,000/-, we are of the considered view to hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings apart from Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses and based on the evidence available on record, we answer point No. 2 and 3 in favour of the Appellant/complainant and against the Respondent/opposite party.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed whereby the Respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 77,028/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings apart from Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses to the appellant/complainant.
The amount awarded shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment of the award amount.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14th day of October 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI K. BASKARAN S. TAMILVANAN
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDENT
