Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/181/2015

Mrs. M.Dhanalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional ManagerOriental Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.Prakash,S.Saranraj,D.Kalaiarasan

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  07.10.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.181/2015

 

1.Mrs.M.Dhanalakshmi,

W/o.Murugesan,

Old No: 10, New No.90,

Dr.Ambedkar Salai,

Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

 

2.Mrs.C.Vijayabharathi,

W/o.Chandrababu,

No:1, Arcot Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

1. The Regional Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Post No: 1877,

No.4, 260, United India Life Building,

4^th Floor, Esplanade,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Service Centre,

Oriental House, II Floor,

New No.216, Old No.115,

Prakasam Salai, Chennai – 600 104.

3. The Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Grievance Department,

Regional Office,

No.8, Esplanade,

Chennai – 600 108.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.12.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s A.Prakash, S.Saranraj,

                                                                    D.Kalaiarasan

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                  : Mr.N.Maheswaraiah

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.7 ½ lakhs with 12 % interest and also to pay compensation for mental agony with costs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The second Complainant is the owner of the Bajaj Tempo Traveler bearing Registration No.TN 20 BC 1049. The 1^st Complainant purchased the said vehicle from the 2^nd Complainant for valuable consideration on 08.04.2014. Immediately on 09.04.2014 the 1^st Complainant applied for name change before the RTO Office within 14 days of transfer of vehicle. On 15.04.2014 the 1^st Complainant approached the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for insurance transfer along with the consent letter of the 2^nd Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 refused to effect the name transfer in the insurance and also informed her that the same could be effected only after name transferred at the RTO Office. The said vehicle was having valid insurance for the period 01.12.2013 to 13.11.2014 issued by the Opposite Parties.

          2. The above said vehicle was stolen on 28.05.2014. On the Complaint preferred by the 1^st Complainant a case in Crime No.787/2014 dated 28.05.2014 under Section 379 IPC, registered at the Maduraivoyal Police. After investigation the said police filed final report as non traceable. Then the 1^st Complainant made a claim to the Opposite Parties. However, the 3^rd Opposite Party simply closed the claim as no claim is not sustainable. The vehicle was having valid insurance. The Opposite Parties failed to honour the claim of the Complainant is not sustainable. Hence the Complainant approached the ombudsman and thereafter filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.7 ½ lakhs with 12 % interest and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the proceedings. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the 2^nd Complainant has taken a policy from them for her Bajaj Tempo Traveler Vehicle for the period 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014. The 2^nd Opposite Party received a claim form from the 1^st Complainant for the theft of the said vehicle.  Mr.Sivathanupillai was appointed as independent investigator. The investigator found that the present owner of the insured vehicle M.Dhanalakshmi was not informed the insurer about the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle, and not produced the vehicle for inspection with fresh proposal form and obtained the necessary endorsement of transfer of Insurance in her name, by paying the due fee within the stipulated time as required under the Motor Vehicles Rules and IRDA regulations. Hence there is no insurable interest for the 1^st Complainant Mrs.Dhanalakshmi, the claimant. She did not inform the fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicle TN 20 BC 1049, till the date of theft.

          4. Under sec 50 (a) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the transferee shall apply for the transfer of the name within 14 days from the date of purchase. In      the instant case, the 1^st Complainant has purchased the said vehicle from the 2^nd Complainant on 09.04.2014. But the 1^st Complainant failed to take steps for transferring her name as prescribed under the M V Act. The 1^st Complainant has applied for change of her name to the 2^nd Opposite Party only on 06.06.2014 after theft of the vehicle though the vehicle was purchased on 08.04.2014. The said insurance transfer letter was filed by the Complainants himself as document No.5 of the complainant’s side documents. Hence it is submitted that, the insured vehicle has no insurable interest at the time of theft. Since, the first Complainant has no insurable interest and also not changed the RC and insurance in her name, she has no insurable interest and hence the Complainants are not entitled for any relief from the Opposite Parties and they have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the 2^nd Complainant is a owner of the  Bajaj Tempo Traveler bearing Registration No.TN 20 BC 1049 and the said vehicle was purchased by the 1^st  Complainant from the 2^nd Complainant for valuable consideration on 08.04.2014 and the said vehicle was stolen on 28.05.2014 from the custody of the first Complainant and immediately she gave a Complaint to the Maduraivoyal police and Ex.A4 FIR in Crime No.787/14  was registered by the said police and on the date of theft the Ex.A1 RC Book, Ex.A2 permit of the vehicle and Ex.A3 insurance policy was existing in the name of the 2^nd Complainant as previous owner and the 2^nd Complainant gave Ex.A5 insurance transport letter in favour of the  1^st Complainant only after the vehicle was stolen and the police issued Ex.A7 non traceable certificate and the  1^st Complainant as a owner of  a vehicle filed the claim with the Opposite Party and the said claim was rejected  by the 3^rd Opposite Party treating the claim as no claim and hence the  Complainants have filed this Complaint.

          7. The case of the Complainants is that the 2^nd Complainant sold the vehicle to the 1^st Complainant on 08.04.2014 and thereafter the 1^st Complainant is in possession of the vehicle immediately on 09.04.2014 that they applied for change of name in the RTO Office and on 15.04.2014  approached Opposite Parties 1 to 2 for insurance transfer in his name with consent letter of the 2^nd Complainant and however the insurance people informed her that they can effect name transfer only after the transport department first changed the name and in the meantime the vehicle was stolen on 28.04.2014 and thereafter  the 1^st Complainant made claim and the same was rejected is not sustainable and hence the Complainant is entitled for the claim amount as prayed in the Complaint.

          8. The Opposite Party would contend that on the day of vehicle was stolen, the insurance and registration certificate are remained only in the previous owner viz., the 2^nd Complainant and as per Motor Vehicles Act Section 50 (a) (i) the transfer of name of the vehicle, the transferor shall apply within 14 days from the date of purchase and however she had not done the same and therefore the Opposite Parties rejected the claim is sustainable and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

          9. Admittedly the vehicle was stolen on 28.05.2014 and on the day itself the 1^st Complainant who is the present owner filed a Complaint before the Maduraivoyal police and Ex.A4 FIR was registered. The 1^st Complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2^nd Complainant on 08.04.2014. As per section 50 (a)(i) of the Motor Vehicle Act the transferee/1^st Complainant shall apply to transfer the owner name within 14 days from the date of purchase on 08.04.2014.  No proof filed to show that within 14 days the 1^st Complainant filed application to transfer her name in the RC. Therefore on the date of theft on 28.05.2014 the vehicle remains only as owner in the name of the 2^nd Complainant in Ex.A1 RC book and Ex.A3 insurance. Therefore as per the records only the 2^nd Complainant is the owner of the vehicle on the date of theft.

10. The 2^nd Complainant has not preferred any Complaint to police and also to the Opposite Parties.  The RC Book and insurance was not transferred in the name of the 1^st Complainant. Though the vehicle was stolen from the custody of the 1^st Complainant, the insurance was not in favour of the 1^st Complainant. Therefore the 1^st Complainant has no insurable interest in his favour since; the insurance policy has not been transferred in her name. This view also supported by an order of the National Commission reported in II (2016) CPJ 678(NC) (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. RAKHWANT SINGH). The National Commission in its order held that as the policy was not transferred in favour of the Complainant, the Complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of accident so the Complaint was dismissed. The National Commission further held that Complainant who did not get insurance policy transferred in his name after purchase of vehicle was not entitled to claim compensation on account of loss to the vehicle due to accident. In this case also on the date of vehicle stolen, though the Complainant is the owner  the insurance policy was not transferred in her name and further she had not applied within 14 days as per the statue to change into her name before the RTO. Therefore in view of the above conclusion, we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.07.2011                   Copy of R.C.Book

Ex.A2 dated 24.08.2011                   Copy of permit in respect of Contract Carriage

Ex.A3 dated 27.11.2013                   Copy of Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy

Ex.A4 dated 28.05.2014                   Copy of the FIR in Crime No.787/2014

Ex.A5 dated 06.06.2014                   Copy of Insurance Transfer Application

Ex.A6 dated 16.06.2014                   Copy of Screen Report of Vehicle

Ex.A7 dated 11.12.2014                   Copy of Non Traceable Certificate issued in RCS

                                                    No.43//2014 by the J.M.No.11, Poonamallee

 

Ex.A8 dated 28.03.2015                   Copy of Rejection letter from the 3^rd Opposite

                                                     Party

 

Ex.A9 dated 02.05.2015                   Copy of Request Letter to the Opposite Parties 1 &

                                                    2

 

Ex.A10 dated 08.05.2015                 Copy of letter from the Insurance Ombudsman

Ex.A11 dated 18.05.2015                 Copy of the request letter to the 3^rd Opposite Party     

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 21.11.2013                   Policy Schedule

 

Ex.B2 dated 24.06.2014                   Investigation Report

 

Ex.B3 dated 28.03.2015                   Repudiation Letter

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT