:ORDER:
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Opposite Parties pay damages of Rs.50,00,000-00 along with 12% interest p.a. towards damages caused to vehicle Audi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD- 0768 and for mental agony and loss occurred and grant such other relief , in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant submits that the complainant is the present owner of Audi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-0769 and he has purchased the said vehicle from the 1stOpposite Party and the registration certificate was transferred in his name with effect from 24-3-2018 and the insurance was continued in the name of previous owner i.e. 1stOpposite Party and there is fourteen days time is stipulated for transfer of insurance form the date of transfer of registration certificate and even though the complainant has approached the insurance company for transfer of the insurance on 26thand 27thof March 2018, but it was not completed as the server was down at the insurance company, but on the ill-fated day i.e. on 28-3-2018 at about 3.30 p.m. when the complainant's son along with the driver Imran Pasha going to Tiptur from Tumakuru when they came in between Bommenahalli and Kotenayakanahalli on NH-206, the driver of the Audi car driven its vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree which was beside the road and due to the said accident the vehicle was fully damaged, driver and son of the complainant were seriously injured and the injured were shifted to hospital and then 29- 3-2018 at about 2-15 p.m. the complainant has lodged the complaint before the Tiptur Rural Police the vehicle was damaged severely. After all the formalities the complainant has shifted the said vehicle to Jubilient Motor Pvt. Ltd. Electronic City, Bengaluru and their they were estimated the repair cost of Rs.74,81,528-54 and the complainant has also incurred more than Rs.50,000-00 for shifting the damaging the vehicle from Tiptur Rural Police Station to service centre and he is paying the parking charge of Rs.500-00 per day from 1stweek of April even till today. .
2(a) The complainant further submitted that he has lodged the complaint against the driver of the Audi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MD-769. The Tiptur Rural Police have registered the case against the driver of the Audi Car under section 279, 337 of IPC in Crime No.23/2018 and he lost his business and he has also incurred huge amount for hiring the taxi. Finally after complete of the investigation the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Audi Car.
2(b) The complainant further submitted that when the complainant has approached the 2nd Opposite Party and seek for compensation they have rejected the claim of the complainant that
3
as the insurance of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of registration certificate owner.
2(c) The complainant further submitted that the complainant has filed the claim petition before the Hon'ble 6thAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in MVC No.588/2018 and their the 2ndOpposite Party has filed his version and contended that the Hon'ble Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to try the above case and hence the complainant has withdrawn the claim petition filed by him and now the complainant is presenting the same before the proper authority. Hence, this complaint.
3. After service of the notice, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have appeared before this Commission and Opposite Party No.2 filed his version. Opposite Party No.1 on 30-7-2019 submits that they have not version.
4. The 2ndOpposite Party contended that the said vehicle was sold by the 1stOpposite Party on 13-2-2018 to used car dealer National Motors located at Rebertson Road, Frazer town, Bengaluru and the delivery note was taken from them on 16-2-2018. The 2ndOpposite Party further contended that the insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant at the time of alleged accident. The insurance policy was in the name of Anuradha Ostwal the Opposite Party No.1 and the period of insurance policy was from 31-8-2017 to 31-8-2018. The complainant approached the Opposite Party on 2-4-2018 and submitted the proposal form along with RC extract for transfer of policy same was transferred to the complainant's name on 2-4- 2018. The 2ndOpposite Party further contended that the complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party for transfer the policy only after the date of accident. As per the documents and investigation by the Opposite Party it was clearly proved that the insurance policy was not stand in the name of complainant. Hence, the complainant has no insurable interest for the vehicle at the time of accident. The 2ndOpposite Party further contended that as per Section 157 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff 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 had insured the vehicle with the details of registration of vehicle date of transfer of the vehicle, previous owner of the vehicle and the date and 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.
5. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7 and Opposite Party has not marked the documents.
6. We have heard the arguments of both sides.
7. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(1) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
(3) What Order?
8. The findings to the above points are;
4
(1) In the Negative
(2) In the Negative
(3) As per final order
:R E A S O N S:
Point Nos. (1) & (2):-
9. Perused the contents of complaint, objection filed by the 2ndOpposite Party, affidavit evidence of both parties and documents produced by both parties. The 2ndOpposite Party in the objection admitted that the complainant is the owner of Audi Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MD- 0769 and purchased the said vehicle from the 1st Opposite Party and registration certificate was transferred in his name on 24-3-2018 and on 28-3-2018 at about 8.30 p.m. the complainant's son along with the driver Imran Pasha going to Tiptur from Tumkur when they came between Bommenahalli and Kotenayakanahalli on NH-2006 dashed against the tree beside the road and due to the accident the vehicle was fully damaged. Driver and the complainant's son had shifted to hospital and then 29-3-2018 at about 2.15 p.m. the complainant lodged the complaint before the Tiptur police station and after all the formalities the complainant shifted the vehicle to Jubilient Motor Works Pvt. Ltd, Electronic City Bengaluru and estimated the repair cost for Rs.74,81,528.54. After investigation the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of Audi car and subsequently the complainant approached the 2ndOpposite Party insurance company. However the insurance company repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the insurance policy has not been transferred in the name of complainant hence the complainant has not insurable interest in vehicle and also contended that as per Section 157 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act and GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff and it is required to be complied within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing and with the deals with the insurer who had insured the vehicle. In case the complainant has not approached for the name of transfer as on the date of accident. Hence, the company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
10. Perused the documents we noticed that the policy was comprehensive policy which is a type of motor insurance policy that is designed for private car owners seeking complete protection for their insured vehicle against all kinds of risks such as accidents, theft, third party liabilities natural calaminities etc.
11. It is evident that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the 1stOpposite Party on 13-2-2018 and the delivery note was taken on 16-2-2018 and 2-4-2018 the complainant approached the 2ndOpposite Party and submitted the proposal form along with RC extract for transfer of policy and on the same date the policy was transferred in the name of complainant on 2-4-2018. As per Section 151 of Motor Vehicle Act after purchase of used car, Section 151 of Motor Vehicle Act caused due to new the vehicle, the vehicle owner to get insurance transferred in his name by applying to the insurance company within 14 days from the date of purchase, it is mandatory. For these 14 days only 3rdparty claim gets automatically transferred. It does not apply to own damage claim. The insurance policy is a contract between
5
the policyholder and insurance company. In the absence of new vehicle owner name on the policy there exists no valid contract between them. Any accidental damage suffered by new owner is not admissible under previous. Also who sell their vehicle an equal responsibility ensures that the insurance is transferred in the new name owner's to avoid any legal hassles arises in future. In view of the provision of 157 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act and GR 17 of the Indian Tariff if new owner fails to transfer the policy within 14 days period, the insurance company i.e. the 2ndOpposite Party is not responsible/liable to bear any loss incurred by new owner.
12. Moreover to prove the contention of the 2ndOpposite Party has submitted two citations which are applicable to the case in hand.
(1) AIR 1996 Supreme Court 586::1995 AIR SCW 4520-Supreme court of India -
"Point in issue: No transfer of the policy, insurer would not be liable to make good the damage to the vehicle" and
(2) IV (2020) CPJ 284 (NC) - Point in issue: "Non transfer of insurance policy, transfer was applied after statutory period of 14 days. There was no contract between the insurer and insured. Repudiation of the claim justified".
him - complaint dismissed".
13. Considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of 2ndOpposite Party and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Point No.(3):-
14. In view of above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. Send a copy of this order to both parties.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
[HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
6
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi]
MEMBER
7