Complaints filed on: 25-08-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 22-09-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.46/2020

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

                                                B.V.Ranganath Lad

S/o late Venkataramanappa,

Aged about 58 years,

3^rd Cross, Kunigal Road,

Sadashivanagar, Tumakuru 

(By Sri.N.Basavaraj, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Oriental Insurance Company, Branch office, TGMC building, JC Road, Tumakuru

2. Regional Manager,

Oriental Insurance,

4^th Floor, Leo Shopping Complex, 44/5, Residency Road Cross,

Bengaluru-25

(By Smt.Indiramma.B.S, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the OP Oriental Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.8,79,394.51 with interest @ 18% p.a. by settling the claim of complainant and award litigation cost.

2. It is the case of complainant that he was the owner of Bharat Benz Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-B-2655 and the said lorry was insured with the 1^st OP Oriental Insurance Company branch at Tumakuru and the policy was valid from 22-2-2018 to 21-2-2019. It is further case of complainant that he was the partner to M/s Akshaya M sand and Stone Crushers, Tumakuru and left the above lorry to the said partnership firm for transportation of crushed Jelly Stones. Subsequently, the complainant has transferred the said lorry in favour of M/s Akshaya M sand and Stone Crushers with effect from 1-3-2018 and transfer was intimated to the 1^st OP to change in the insurance policy in the name of partnership firm. It is the case of complainant that intervening night of 15/16-9-2018 the above lorry loaded M sand from the partnership firm for proceedings towards vegetable market near Tumakuru city and in the mid night at 12.30 a.m. the lorry met with an accident dashing road divider as a result the lorry was capsized. Further driver of the lorry was died at the spot.

3. The complainant has reported the accident to police and the OP Insurance Company and on receiving the report the insurance company has deputed the surveyor for inspection of lorry. The OP insurance company has repudiated the claim stating that as on the date of accident i.e. on 16-9-2018 registration certificate stood in the name of partnership firm and there is no privity of contract between the owner of lorry and insurance company hence, this complaint.

          4. In response to the notice OP appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that it had issued policy in the name of complainant for the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-51-B-2655. The OP was not aware that the complainant was partner of M/s. Akshaya M sand and Stone Crushers and left the vehicle for transportation of crushed jelly stones. The OP admits that it has repudiated the claim of complainant since there is no privity of contract between the insurance company and registered owner of vehicle M/s. Akshaya M sand and Stone Crushers. On the amongst other grounds, the OP asked to dismiss the complaint. 

          5. The Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-P1 to P9 documents. On behalf of OP one V.Muralidhara, Manager has filed affidavit evidence and got marked Ex-R1 to R5 documents.

6. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and OP in addition to written brief submitted by the OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves that repudiation of his claim by the OP is unjust and improper?
2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative   

Point No.2: In the negative for the                  

below

REASONS

          8. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant was the owner of ill fated lorry which met with an accident on 16-9-2018 and the complainant has transferred the vehicle on 1-3-2018 in favour of M/s Akshaya M sand and Stone Crushers. Though the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident the OP insurance company has illegally repudiated the claim. As against this the learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the complainant is not proper party since the policy was not transferred in the name of partnership firm. Further there is no privity of contract between the complainant and insurance company.

          9. Admitted facts in this case are that at the time of issue of policy no.42301/31/2018/10365 for the period from 22-2-2018 to 21-2-2019 tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-51-B-2655 stood in the name of complainant Sri.B.V.Ranganath Lad. Further the said lorry was transferred to M/s. Akshay M sand and Stone Crushers with effect from 1-3-2018. The complainant has produced Ex.P3 copy of registration certificate of the said lorry which reads as the owner is Akshaya M Sand and Stone Crushers, Tumakuru with effect from 1-3-2018. According to Ex-P3 the complainant was not the owner of vehicle on the date of accident i.e. on 16-9-2018. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has intimated to OP insurance company to transfer the insurance policy in the name of partnership firm as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act within 14 days from the date of transfer of vehicle or thereafter till the date of accident. The OP has not disputed the accident to the lorry on 16-9-2018.

          10. The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the case of Firdaus v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3572, Rikhi Ram and Another v/s Sukhrania (Smt) and others (2003) Supreme Court Cases 97 and Smt.Sharada and Another v/s Sri.D.Selvam since deceased by LR and another 2020 (4) KCCR 3098. The Hon’ble Supreme court in both the decisions held that the insurer’s liability to pay compensation continues even if vehicle stood transferred to another. Apex Court held that whenever a vehicle which is covered by the insurance policy is transferred to a transferee, the liability of insurer does not cease so far as the third party/victim is concerned, even if the owner or purchaser does not give any intimation as required under the provisions of the Act.  In the above decisions the Apex Court has observed the provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with regard to transfer of owner ship of vehicle and intimating to the insurer. The decisions relied upon by the complainant are not helpful to him since they are pertaining to third party insured or LRs of deceased. Even if the owner or purchaser does not give any intimation to the insurance company with regard to transfer of ownership of the vehicle and change of policy in the name of transferee the insurance company is still liable to pay compensation to third party victim as the policy is issued to vehicle which covers risk of third party.

          11. The learned counsel for OP insurer relied upon the case of Sandeep Gupta v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Another. The Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2355/2012 dated 14-2-2014 has relied upon the case of Rikhi Ram & Anr v/s Sukhrania & Ors (2003) 3 SCC 97. In para No.12 of the order it is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 157 held that although with the transfer of vehicle the insurance company remains liable towards third parties claim, but the transferee cannot get any personal benefits under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is further held that the insurance company would remain liable to third party, but it would be open to the insurance company to recover the said amount either from the insured or from the transferee of the vehicle. In the case on hand though the lorry transferred in the name of partnership firm with effect from 1-3-2018 either the complainant-insured or partnership firm have not intimated to the OP Insurance company to transfer of the policy of insurance in the name of transferee i.e. partnership firm. On the date of accident the complainant herein was not the owner of ill fated lorry as already he lost ownership by selling vehicle to the partnership firm with effect from 1-3-2018. The partnership firm has not intimated to the insurance company to transfer the policy in its name as per the provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act within 14 days from the date of purchase. The complainant was the owner of vehicle prior to transfer in his individual capacity but not as partner of firm. Therefore, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. The decision relied upon by the OP is supporting the defence taken by the insurance company. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without cost.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of September, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT