Date of Filing:18/03/2011

        Date of Order:13/05/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  13^th DAY OF MAY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 561 OF 2011

Sri. Jayamuthu,

S/o. Chikkanegowda,

R/at: No.9/4, B2,

Rajeshwari Weigh Bridge,

Hosure Main Road,

Bommanahalli,

BANGALORE-560 068.                                                        ….  Complainant.

V/s

The Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

No.2, 1^st Floor, Hosure Road,

Madiwala,

Bangalore-560068.                                                                      …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,25,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant had purchased a second hand 2002 model MGV-Goods Carriager Eicher 10.90 bearing No. KA-05 AB-8182 from the first owner and the RC was transferred to his name on 07.08.2008.  The said vehicle had insurance of the opposite party and it was valid between 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008.  The complainant’s mother was hospitalized wherefore the complainant failed to get transfer of the insurance to his name.  On 28.08.2008 between 1.00 to 3.00 pm near Rajeshwary Weigh Bridge some culprits committed theft of the vehicle.  The complainant informed the said things to the police.  Later he lodged a written complaint on 31.08.2008, a case was registered in crime No.614/2008 and the police filed ‘C’ report before the concerned Magistrate on 18.06.2010.  The complainant approached the opposite party for getting the insurance claim, but they have not settled it.  He issued a notice to the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

The purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant or its theft is not known to the opposite party.  Sri. Baskar the owner of the vehicle had insurance with respect to the vehicle between 01.12.2007 to 31.11.2008 is admitted.  Within 14 days from the date of purchase the insurance is not transferred in the name of the complainant nor it was intimated to the opposite party.  There is delay of three days in lodging the complaint to the police station and delay of two years five months in intimating this to the opposite party.  Hence the claim is not maintainable.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether the action of the opposite party is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice?
2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Negative.

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

5.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is admitted by both the parties that one Sri. R. Baskar was the owner of the MGV-Goods Carriager Eicher 10.90 bearing No. KA-05-AB-8182 of the year 2002 model.  The said Baskar had insured the vehicle with the opposite party and the insurance was valid between 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008.  It is also established that on 07.08.2008 the RC is transferred in the name of the complainant.

6.       When the complainant had purchased the vehicle?  On what day it had purchased the vehicle?  What is the consideration he has paid?  is not at all stated.  Under law within 14 days from the date of purchase the RC has to be transferred and insurance had to be transferred.  In this case on 07.08.2008 the RC is transferred in the name of the complainant, but whether it is in a 14 days or otherwise or more than 14 days is not known. 

7.       In any event after purchase of the vehicle and getting it transferred to his name on 07.08.2008 the complainant has not intimated the transfer of the vehicle to his name to the opposite party nor got the insurance transferred to his name, till date even after lapse of two years.

8.       The complainant at Para-3 as stated that:-

The complainant submit that, he purchased a second hand 2002 model MGV-Goods Carriager Eicher 10.90 bearing registration No. KA-05, AB-8182, Engine No.E483A21081236, Chassis No.71FC21086420, worth about Rs.4,00,000/- by the first owner Sri Baskar.R son of Ramachandra Naidu, after the purchase of the vehicle all the records were transferred from the name of the First owner to the name of complainant on 07.08.2008 except Insurance.  After purchasing the said vehicle complainant mother was hospitalized wherefore he failed to transfer the insurance to his name.  Therefore complainant failed to transfer the Insurance Policy to his name.  At the time of purchasing the vehicle your insurance company is the insurer to the said vehicle.

This itself clearly goes to show that he has not intimated the transfer of the vehicle to his name to the opposite party at any point of time nor got insurance transferred to his name.  The complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party on 04.02.2011.  Even in this he has not stated that he had intimated the transfer of RC to his name, he becoming the owner of the vehicle and seeking changing of the insurance to his name.  He is only claiming the insured amount that’s all.

9.       It is further established or seen that on 01.09.2008 after lapse of 23 days after the vehicle being purchased by him he had lodged a complaint to the police stating that on 28.08.2008 the vehicle had been committed theft and this also has not been intimated to the opposite party.  The police filed ‘C’ report and it was accepted by the Magistrate on 15.06.2010.  After issue of notice to the opposite party on 10.06.2009 even after that the complainant has not intimated the transfer of ownership or theft of the vehicle to the opposite party.  But after lapse of about three years he issued notice to the opposite party claiming money on 04.02.2011.

10.     Hence as Under 1996 ACJ 65, III (2009) CPJ 217, III (2009) CPJ 320, First Appeal No.321/2005 between New India Assurance Company Limited and Trilochan Jane it is disposed-of on 09.12.2009.  It is clearly held that if the vehicle is transferred to third person and the insurance is not transferred within 14 days from the date of purchase and Insurance Company is not intimated of the transfer the insurer is not liable to pay the insured amount in the case of exigencies.  This principles squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case.  There is no dispute about this, hence the complaint is liable to be rejected.

11.     The complainant have stated II (2008) CPJ 71 (NC) and I(2009) CPJ 183 (NC).  These principles are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.  Though there is no dispute about the proposition of the law laid down in.  In this case after the purchase as admitted by the complainant he had not intimated the transfer ownership himself to the opposite party for three years nor made any claim nor intimated the theft to the opposite party.  He has violated the terms of the policy hence he is not liable to claim insurance amount from the opposite party.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th Day of May 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT