SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         This complaint  has been filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for getting an order directing 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.342900/- to the complainant as the valued amount for the damaged vehicle with 12% interest  from the date of request  together with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental pain  and sufferings  together with Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings of this case.

   Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Corolla Altis Car(MH 02 BJ 988) from the 2^nd OP for his personal use.  He paid  full amount to the 2^nd OP.  The ownership not be changed at that time because the car has hypothecation.  For changing the ownership in the name of  complainant no objection certificate for transferring the ownership of the vehicle from RTO Pune to RTO Taliparamba is required as is also interstate transfer.  Moreover the vehicle had hypothecation  as the NOC from the  financier is also  required.  The 2^nd OP undertake to clear the hypothecation liabilities and after obtaining no objection certificate from the financier the ownership had to change in the name of the complainant.  Meanwhile the insurance policy got expired thus the complainant approached 1^st OP and requested to renew the policy  from its Payyanur branch  on 8/2/2017.  For renewing the policy the complainant paid the  premium amount of Rs.12,903/- and furnished his contacting number  for  further  communication .  The complainant should  get NOC from RTO Pune for transferring the registration to Kerala and as per that  he applied for transferring the registration before Taliparamba  RTO.  The 1^st OP very well know  all these facts at the time of issuing the insurance policy.  Moreover the 1^st OP assured the complainant that as soon as the registration shifted to Kerala, the owner’s name can be changed in the insurance policy also.  At the time of issuing of the policy the contact number given was that of the complainant. The complainant given full amount  to the 2^nd OP and the 2^nd OP paid dues of loan  and cancelled the hypothecation and get no  objection certificate from the financier and that  was entered in the registration certificate on 25/12/17 and that is entered in the RC book also.  Soon after that the complainant has applied for NOC from RTO Pune for transferring the ownership registration to RTO Thaliparamba.  Thus soon after cancelling the hypothecation, the complainant got NOC from the  RTO Pune for transferring the ownership to RTO Thaliparamba in his name  on 3/1/2018.  So he paid the tax here  at RTO Thaliparamba and applied for transferring the ownership in the name of the complainant and the RTO directs the complainant to produce the vehicle for verification .  While transiting the vehicle from Pune to Thaliparamba, the vehicle met with an accident  on Sangvi police station limit ,Pune on 4/2/2018 and the vehicle was totally damaged, an FIR was lodged as crime No.58/2018  and the surveyor of  1^st OP visited the site and calculated the damages as 3,42,900/-.  The damaged vehicle was given to salvage by the 1^st OP and an amount of Rs.40,000/- given to the complainant as savage amount to the vehicle in addition to the damages. Therefore the 1^st OP informed the complainant to get consent of  the 2^nd OP for paying the  damage amount to the complainant as he was the registered owner. The 2^nd OP has no objection in handing  over the damages to the complainant.  But the 1^st OP denied the claims raising some unacceptable reasons.  The complainant has got every right to get the compensation. The complainant himself  entered into policy agreement with the 1^st OP and during  the course of changing  the ownership of the vehicle the accident happened.  After getting consent  the 1^st OP replied to the complainant that the claim was repudiated.  On 2/8/2018 complainant send a legal notice to 1^st OP, in a reply notice  1^st OP denying the demand of the  complainant.  Hence this complaint  

         After receiving notices 1^st OP filed version stating that the complainant  is not a consumer as defined under the consumer Protection Act.  He was never a consumer of the 1^st OP at any point of time.  There was no privity of contract between  the complainant and the 1^st OP during  the period of the policy pertaining to the said vehicle.  The insurance policy in question at the time of accident stands in the name of the 2^nd OP.  The said policy was not a valid policy also since it was obtained at a time when the 2^nd OP had no insurable interest over the said vehicle. Since there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1^st OP, the 1^st OP has no liability to indemnify him for the loss allegedly caused to him.  1^st OP denied all the allegations raised by the  complainant against 1^st OP that the damaged vehicle was given to salvage by the 1^st OP and an amount of Rs.40,000/-  was given to the complainant as  salvage amount to the vehicle is absolutely  false  and denied. The 1^st OP had not given the vehicle to salvage nor  they paid any amount to the complainant either  as salvage  or under any other head/count.  It is submitted that  the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, there is no merit in the complaint .  Therefore  prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.    2^nd OP remained absent, hence  set exparte.

    At the evidence  time, complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A22.  PW1 was subjected to cross-examination for the 1^st OP.  From the side of 1^st OP the insurance package policy in the name of 2^nd OP at the date of accident of the vehicle has been produced and marked as Ext.B1.

    After that the learned counsel of  1^st OP made oral argument and  submitted judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

   Complainant had purchased the car from 2^nd OP in this case for his personal use.  The complainant paid full amount to 2^nd OP.  The ownership was not changed at that time as the car has hypothecation.  The vehicle met with an accident on 4/2/2018.  By that time, neither the vehicle nor the insurance policy had been transferred in the name of the complainant.  It is not disputed that the complainant neither got the vehicle registered in his name nor transfer the  insurance policy in his name.  Under Motor Vehicle Act, Transfer of certificate of insurance-on transfer of ownership, the policy or package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the  person  to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer.  The  transferee is required to apply within 14 days from the  date of transfer in writing under recorded details registration of vehicle, date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and the date and the number of the policy  so that the insurer may make necessary changes in the record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. Unless the aforesaid  procedure of  transfer of  vehicle  is followed and complied, the transferee has no insurable interest.

   In the present case, admittedly the transferee complainant did not get the vehicle  transferred in his name and intimate the Insurance company about the  transfer of the vehicle within 14 days of the registration in his name to enable the complainant to make necessary changes in its record and issue a fresh certificate of insurance.  The complainant did not get any renewal of contract of insurance in respect of vehicle and therefore, complainant did not get any insurable interest on the date on which  the vehicle  met with an accident.  Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act is applicable to 3^rd party  rights only and not to own damage case.  The Hon’ble National Commission on the decision in  Kondaiah’s case,  held that the insured  could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question .  It is only  in respect of  a third party risks that Sec.157 of the New Motor Vehicle Act provides that the certificate of insurance described therein shall be deemed to  have been transferred in favour of the person  to whom the motor vehicle is  transferred .  Further if the policy of insurance covers other risks , damage caused to the vehicle of insured himself, there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to  cover the risk or damage to the  vehicle.  In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred  the policy of insurance in relation thereto  to the complainant, 1^st OP was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Rkhi Ram & Anr. Vs. Sukrania & Ors (II (2003)SLT 62 (2003) 3 SCC 97, that as per provisions of Sec.157, although with the transfer of   vehicle, the Insurance company remains liable towards third party claims but the transferee cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a  compliance of the provisions of the Act.  It was observed: on analysis of sections 94&95, there are two third parties when a vehicle is transferred by the owner to  a purchase.  The purchaser is one of the third parties to the contract and other third party is for whose benefit the vehicle was insured.  So far, the transferee who is the  third party in the contract , cannot get any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a compliance of the provisions of the Act.

   The Hon’ble Appellate commission  has taken a view in many cases that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations , if the  transferee fails to inform the Insurance company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the  Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of the vehicle.

   Here the Registration was not transferred in the name of complainant and also the policy is not transferred.  Ext.B1 and Ext.A10 clearly shows that the policy was in the name of prior owner(2^nd OP herein).  1^st OP further denied the averment of complainant about the payment of Rs.40,000/- as salvage amount of the vehicle to the complainant.  Complainant also failed to substantiate the said allegation by producing documentary evidence.

       Hence considering the Motor Vehicle Act and the decisions  of the Supreme Court, we are also of the  view that the Insurance company(1^st OP) is justified in repudiating  the claim of the complainant.

         Accordingly the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.  There is no order  of cost to the proceedings of the case.

Exts:

A1- RC

A2-NOC dtd.1/1/18

A3-Transfer of ownership from Motor vehicle dept.

A4-Tax receipt

A5-cess collection receipt

A6-NOC issued  by RTO Pune to PW1

A7-Screen shot of vehicle registration status

A8-Application for assignment of new Registration mark

A9-copy of affidavit filed by complainant before RTO

A10-copy of insurance policy

A11-Copy of FIR

A12-Copy of Report

A13-Mobile screen shot of receipt

A14- Letter issued by RTO dtd.11/5/18

A15&A16- Intimation by 1^st OP

A17-True  copy of demand notice

A18-reply notice

A19-Acknowledgment card

A20-letter to the complainant

A21- Account statement

A22-copy of details of branch code.

B1-Insurance package policy of 2^nd OP

PW1-Jishnu-complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                  Sd/

PRESIDENT                                MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                 Molykutty Mathew                            Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR