BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.834 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.35 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, KHAMMAM.
Between:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.11/1170, Vijayawada road,
Near Challarastha Center,
Machilipatnam,
Rep. By its local Branch,
Wyra Road, Khammam. Appellant/
O.P. no.1
A N D
1. Smt.E.Narasamma W/o.Narayana
Aged 55 years, Occ:Owner of Qualis
No.AP 16AT 1989, R/o.186/A,
Luxmidevipalli, BCM Road,
New Palvoncha, Khammam Dist., Respondent/
Complainant
2. G.Venkat Reddaiah, S/o.Satyanarayana,
Earlier owner of vehicle,
R/o.Gudivada, Krishna District. Respondent /
OP 2
Counsel for the Appellant Mr M.Ramgopal Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents M/s Y.Pulla Rao
Notice of R2 held sufficient.
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/c.President.
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c. President)
***
The opposite party No.1 is the appellant.
The respondent No.1 filed the complaint for a direction to opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.4,04,850/- towards damages of vehicle together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim form till the date of payment together with Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
The averments of the complaint are that the respondent no.1 purchased Qualis car bearing No.AP16AT 1989 from respondent No.2 on 25-9-2009 and the car was transferred in the name of the first respondent. The first respondent after receiving the RC on 26-9-2009 was returning to Paloncha and at that time accident occurred and as 27-9-2009 being Sunday and 28-9-2009 being Vijayadasami, the respondent No.1 was unable to get transferred the policy issued by the appellant. The respondent No.1 immediately intimated the appellant about the accident occurred at Khammam on 27-9-2009 through his mobile and at about 13.00 hours Sri A.V.Suresh, Surveyor visited the spot and conducted spot survey.
The respondent No.1 submitted that on 29-9-2009, the Police Julurupadu conducted panchanama and the vehicle was shifted to workshop and she invested an amount of Rs.4,04,850/- towards repairs. The respondent No.1 submitted that she approached the appellant at Machilipatnam and submitted relevant documents along with DD for Rs100/- and submitted claim form on 20-11-2009 and the appellant made correspondence through letters dated 4-5-2010 and 15-7-2010 and requested her to furnish certain documents and she furnished the relevant documents to appellant. The respondent No.1 submitted that on 17-3-2011, appellant issued a letter stating ‘no claim’ as the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the new owner was not affected in the policy.
The appellant and the respondent No.2 proceeded exparte.
Exs.A1 to A11 had been marked on behalf of respondent No.1.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,19,250/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation letter i.e.. 14-3-2012 and dismissed the complaint against opposite party No.2.
Feeling aggrieved by the order, the opposite party no.1 has filed appeal contending that the policy issued in the name of the respondent No.2 was not transferred in favour of the respondent No.1 and therefore there is no insurable interest in favour of respondent No.1 and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The appellant submitted that the question of jurisdiction is concerned as per Ex.A5, Panchanama of Police, the accident happened at Narasapuram village of Julurupadu Mandal within the jurisdiction of Khammam District Forum and held that part of cause of action arose based on decision of “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and others v. Agastus Tirki and others” and the same is not relevant to the facts of the present case and prayed to allow the appeal.
The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the District Forum, Khammam has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
ii) Whether the respondent No.1 is entitled to the sum assured under the insurance policy issued in favour of respondent No.2?
iii) To what relief?
Point No.1: The second respondent is owner of Qualis bearing Regn.No.AP16AT 1989 and insured it with the appellant insurance company. The first respondent purchased the vehicle from the second respondent on 25-9-2009 and got the ownership of the vehicle transferred in his favour on the same day. However, the insurance policy was not transferred on the same day for the reasons assigned by the first respondent as to the vehicle having met with an accident on 26-9-2009 and 27-9-2009 being Sunday and the next day i.e. 28-9-2009 was ‘VijayaDasami’. We are not concerned here with the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 for non transfer of the insurance policy in his favour.
The Machilipatnam branch of National Insurance Company had issued insurance policy bearing No.56150231/09/6100000465 in favour of the second respondent pertaining to the vehicle and as such any claim in respect of the vehicle under the insurance policy has to be made within the jurisdiction of District Forum within which the appellant insurance company is carrying on its business. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company reported in CDJ 2009 SC 1916 wherein the Supreme Court held that “when no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the insurance office in the matter relating to fire insurance policy, the complaint has to be filed within the jurisdiction of the District forum wherein the branch office of the insurance company which had issued the insurance policy”.
The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on the decisions reported in I (2013) CPJ 664 (NC) in ‘National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.’ wherein the National Commission held that since the transferee died before expiry of 30 days, period of transferring of policy has not yet started and held that the repudiation of the policy was unjustified.
In ‘Div.Manager, United India Insurance Co. vs. Kunhammed T.V. and ors’., reported in 2012(3) CPR 99, the Kerala State Commission held that even though the policy from the name of sellar to complainant had been transferred after the death of the complainant, the insurance company was directed to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor as transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer to insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the office of RTO will forward RC to person who sought for transfer of RC by post only there is no lapse on the part of the complainant.
In ‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Neelam Singh and others’ reported in I (2207) CPJ 365 the Chattisgarh State Commission held that as per Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, though Policy was issued at Bilaspur office and death occurred at Sarguja within the jurisdiction of District Forum at which the complaint was filed, the insurer is liable.
In ‘Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Agastus Tirki & ors’. reported in I (2010) CPJ 96 the Chattisgarh State Commission held that if accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum and since part of cause of action, the complaint is entertainable before the Forum.
In view of the decision of the Supreme court in Sonic Surgical (supra) we direct respondent No.1 to pursue her case before the District Forum having appropriate jurisdiction.
Point No.2: As the District Forum, Khammam has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, there need to any discussion under this point.
Point No.3: In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to return the complaint to the first respondent for presenting it before appropriate Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
Jvm Dt.19-12-2013.
