SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Ravishankar, Presiding Member and Sunita C. Bagewadi, Lady Member
Mohadin Sab —Complainant
versus
Anuradha Ostwal and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.62 of 2019
Decided on 3.7.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Shri/Smt. Syed Muzammil Pasha, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1:By Sri. Ravikumara. R.V., Advocate
For the O.P. No.2:By Sri. Prashant. J. Pandit, Advocate

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Jurisdiction of State Commission – Services – Insurance – Transfer of Insurance – New Owner – absence of new vehicle owner name – The complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Opposite Parties pay damages – 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 3rd party claim gets automatically transferred. It does not apply to own damage claim – The insurance policy is a contract between 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 – Thus, 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 2nd Opposite Party is not responsible/liable to bear any loss incurred by new owner – The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of 2nd Opposite Party and hence the complaint is dismissed. [Paras 9 to 13]

Result: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER

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 1st Opposite 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. 1st Opposite 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 26th and 27th of 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 1st week 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 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 6th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in MVC No.588/2018 and their the 2nd Opposite 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 2nd Opposite Party contended that the said vehicle was sold by the 1st Opposite 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 2nd Opposite Party further contended that the insurance policy has not be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top