BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 368/2015
Sri B. Gururaj, S/o Late K. Bhaskar Pai, Aged about 35 years, R/at 5th Cross, Sheshadri Puram, Shimoga 577 201. (By Sri H.R. Showri) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Division Office, Mallappa Complex, BH Road, Shimoga 577 201. (By Sri V. Subramani) | …Respondent/s |
ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.03.03.2015 passed in CC.No.189/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimoga
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission for deficiency in service in not settling the own damage claim towards the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14-C-5185. The District Commission after receipt of the complaint issued notice and Opposite Party had taken a contention that as on the date of accident, the complainant has no insurable interest, hence, repudiated the claim and submits that there is no deficiency in service. Considering the evidence, of both sides, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against which the complainant/appellant before this Commission.
3. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order, we noticed that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14-C-5185 met with an accident on 06.03.2013 and suffered damages. After claim made by the complainant, the Opposite Party has investigated the matter through IRDA approved surveyor. Wherein they noticed that the vehicle registration stands in the name of one Mr. K. Bhaskar Pai and the said Mr. Bhaskar Pai had obtained policy from the Opposite Party in the year 2004. On 06.06.2011 itself, the said owner of the vehicle died, but, the complainant had not informed the death of the RC owner i.e., Mr. K. Bhaskar Pai either to insurance company or to nearest RTO and he had not made any attempt to transfer the vehicle registration into his name. But any how he had renewed the policy as and when it was required in the name of the deceased Mr. K. Bhaskar Pai. Hence, requested to settle the claim and prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission. But, as appreciated by the District Commission, the complainant has no insurable interest as neither he was the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident, nor the policy stands in the name of the complainant. The complainant has not explained the reason for not transferring the RC into his name. Mere hypothecation of the vehicle will not struck the complainant from transferring RC into his name or any intimation to the insurance company with respect to the change of name in the policy. Hence, we found no merits in the appeal and there is no error in the Order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
