Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ravishankar, Presiding Member and
Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member
Bodimalla Venkatanarayana Reddy – Appellant
versus
General Manager TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.420 of 2020
Decided on 13.11.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri. K. Manohara Chari, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Sri. Prashanth T. Pandit, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Purchase Agreement – If the vehicle was purchased through hire purchase agreement, the appellant cannot transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favaour of the 3rd person until the loan amount is fully repaid.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Insurance – Factum of ownership – On the date of Accident – Proof of – The District Commission in their order held that the complainant has purchased a vehicle on 14.7.2015 and agreement in favour of S executed and handing over the possession along with required document. Hence on the date of accident, the complainant/appellant is not the owner of vehicle and he has no insurable interest. However, if the vehicle was purchased through hire purchase agreement, the appellant cannot transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favaour of the 3rd person until the loan amount is fully repaid. The appellant cannot sell the vehicle without permission/consent of the financier. Moreover, whenever the property is subject to future terms and conditions and its transfer is based on future date, it is referred as agreement to sell. In the present case, the respondents have not produced any documents that the appellant has delivered the actual possession of the said vehicle through registration. The registration was on the name of appellant valid upto 2017 the permit was on the name of appellant valid upto 2020 and policy was also in the name of the appellant which was in force at the time of accident – Thus, ownership of vehicle is not proved – Therefore Appeal is allowed, impugned order set aide. [Paras 6 to 10].
Result: Appeal Allowed.
ORDER
Smt. Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member—This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the 1st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.586/2018 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:—
The complainant purchased TIPPER vehicle by obtaining loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from OP.No.1 to be repayable in 35 EMI’s of Rs.73,150/-. The same was registered with RTO at Chikkaballapur on 05.08.2015 and the number given was KA 40 – A 2919. The RC has also been issued to his name. It is further contended that on 17.09.2017 at about 7 p.m near Cheldiganipalli village, Ramakuppa Mandal, Malur – V-Kota Road, the vehicle met with an accident due to which it got fully damaged as it fell into 10 feet depth and the same could not be put on road and it is a total loss. One person working along with the driver in the said vehicle also died in the said accident. Immediately police and the OPs were intimated and informed over telephone and an insurance claim was also made for the insured value. The insurance was in force at the time of accident. However, OP rejected the indemnification of the policy on the ground of breach of conditions, such as no valid fitness certificate and permit. The Opposite Party appointed surveyor to survey the loss who assessed the loss after inspection and found that there is no mechanical defect in the vehicle at the time of accident. In view of the same, the repudiation on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.
3. Upon the service of notice, Opposite Parties have appeared before the Forum and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts; it is frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed by imposing punitive cost. After obtaining the insurance from them, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions under which the policy was issued. He also violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, in particular, Section 56, 66, 59 and 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is further contended that, the accident and the claim was reported to it on 20.09.2017 and they sent a surveyor to survey the spot as per IRDA Rules on 21.09.2017. During the course of inspection and on verification, it was found that the said tipper was running on the road out of the permit area on the date of accident i.e. on 17.09.2017. No permit was obtained by the complainant to take the vehicle to a neighboring state without obtaining necessary permission. Further there is no valid fitness certificate at the time of accident which is violative of the provisions of Sub-Section 3 Section 66 and Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed to dismiss the complaint under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. After trial, the District Consumer Commission has dismissed the complaint with cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased TIPPER lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-40-A-2919 and it has been insured with the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.19,80,803/-being the IDV value of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that, the said vehicle met with an accident fell into 10 feet depth on 17.09.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. near Cheldiganipalli village, Ramakuppa Mandal, Malur-V.Kota Road fully damaged and the same could not be put on road and it is a total loss. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of accident, the policy was in force. The allegations of the appellant is that, after accident he made the claim for insurance/respondent Company, however, the respondent/ insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the breach of co
