BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.78/2022

DATED ON THIS THE 13^th  FEBRUARY-2023

Present:        1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Smt. Sharavathi. S.M,

                                               BA., LLB., MEMBER

ORDER’s Delivered by Smt. SHARAVATHI. S.M,

                                                               MEMBER

1.        This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposites parties (herein referred to as OP’S­) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 for the deficiency in service in  repudiating the claim in respect of the accident repair charges of vehicle NO KA-04-MR-2875. Along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of claim till realization and for Rs.1,00000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs.30,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses and for other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.         The brief facts of the Complaint are that:- the Complainant purchased a second hand Hyundai Creta Car from OP NO2 M/S Sahyadri Electro Controls India Pvt, ltd., bearing Reg. No KA-04-MR-2875 by paying entire sale consideration. It is contended that, at the time of purchase, OP NO 2 undertook to transfer the RC and other documents to the name of the complainant within 90 days and accordingly the RC was transferred to her name. However the insurance policy was not transferred to her name. It is further contended that, the said vehicle was insured in the name of OP NO 2 for the period 04/03/2021 to03/03/2022.

3.         It is contended that on 23/08/2021 at about 12-30 am when the driver of the complainant’s car by name Ravikumar who was driving the vehicle tried to avoid a quarrelling dogs which come across the road   all of a sudden, and in order to avoid the same took the left turn and the said vehicle got turtle and thereby met with an accident suffering heavy damages. A complainant was also given to Manchenahalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura within its limits the accident spot i.e., Gowribidanur Road near Kondenahalli Village is situated. Police registered a case in crime NO 0147/2021 visited the spot and drew up mahazar. The same was intimated to insurance company and that it obtained quotation from IRDA licenced surveyor and the estimate of repair was for Rs.5,82,796/- and the complainant requested OP NO 1 to sanction the insurance amount to get it repaired. OP NO 1 after verifying the documents as to the insurance not being transferred to the complainant refused to pay the insurance claim amount.

4.         Since OP No 2 has taken the entire responsibility of getting the documents transferred to the name of the complainant, and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, OP NO 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to her in respect of the cost involved to repair the car. She sent a request letter dated on 20/09/2021 demanding the OP’s to get the vehicle repaired and the repair charges reimbursed. Inspite of it, OP’S have not at all considered her demand and request. The act of the OP’s amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in not reimbursing the insurance amount. Hence, the complaint.

5.         Upon the service of notice OP NO 1   appeared before the Commission through their advocates and filed its version. In spite of service of notice upon OP No.2, it does not turn up.  Hence, placed ex-party for his absence.

6.         In the version filed by the OP NO 1 is contended that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that it is filed on false, frivolous, vexatious grounds and just filed to enrich herself unjustly. As per Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff, which deals with the transfer of insurance policy, on transfer of ownership, transferee is required to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle, date and number of the policy issued, so that the insurer make necessary changes in the records and issue fresh certificate of the insurance. Hence aforesaid procedure of transfer of vehicle was not followed and complied by the transferee. She has no insurable interest. In this case also complainant after getting the RC transfer to her name, has not at all intimated as per the above rules and not got transferred the insurance policy to her name. Hence, OP No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation or policy amount to the complainant as there is non-insurable interest. Complainant herself under fault cannot seek any relief. The complainant has misused the Commission procedure in enriching herself unduly. There is no deficiency in service on its part and the relief sought and the claim made is unjustifiable. Hence by denying the all the allegations made, prayed the Commission to dismiss the Complaint.

7.         In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the Complaint?
3.  

8.         Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1 & 2: In the Negative

                          For the following.

                               REASONS

POINT NO 1:-

9.         It is not in dispute that, the complainant purchased the said vehicle from OP no 2 by executing a pre-owned car booking commitment check list. It has been clearly understood and committed that insurance to be transferred in the name of purchaser.

10.       When this is taken into consideration which has come into existence on 08/04/2021, it becomes beyond reasonable doubt that no liability can be fixed on the part of OP NO.1 regarding getting the insurance transferred to the name of the complainant. When such being the case, OP NO.1 cannot be held responsibility and there is no deficiency on its part.

11.       Complainant produced copy of the RC of said vehicle which is in the name of the Complainant and the same was transferred on 04/03/2016. Copy of the insurance certificate is also produced wherein this vehicle is insured in the name of OP NO 2 period of insurance is from 04/03/2021 to 03/03/2022. Copy of the complaint given to the PI of Manchenahalli Police Station and they acknowledged. The estimate copy is also produced. From the said documents, it can be easily inferred that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle having got the RC changed to her name. It can also be gathered from the said documents, that the accident has taken place and vehicle got damaged. Inspite of it there is no document to show that the insurance certificate has been transferred to the name of the complainant in order to make OP NO 1 liable under the policy terms.

12.       As pointed by the OP no 1 it is bounded duty of the complainant to get the insurance certificate transferred to her name after the transfer of RC to her name as contemplated under the Motor Vehicle Act. When this taken in to the consideration, no effort has been made by the complainant to show that after the transfer of the vehicle to her name. The same was not intimated to the insurance authority to get the insurance certificate changed to her name. As per the said provisions of the act within 14 days from the date of transfer of RC, request and intimation to be made with a concerned insurance company to transfer the insurance liability.

13.       If when the insurance certificate is transferred to the name of the complainant after the transfer the RC  to her name then only she is entitle for own damages and third party damages. In case as of now, even if the insurance is not transferred to her name, and if there is any claim by third party, then the insurance company is liable to pay the claim as the said liability automatically transfers along with the vehicle.

14.       Hence, under the circumstance this Commission is of the opinion that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP NO 1 or OP NO 2 to hold them responsible and liable. Hence we answer POINT NO 1 IN THE  NEGATIVE and in the result POINT NO 2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:-

                                ORDER

1. Complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by him, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 13^th February 2023)