NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHAIK DAWOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Insurance Company which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 01.06.09 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No.1261/06 whereby the State Commission reversing the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint has allowed the appeal and directed the Petitioner to settle the claim of the insurance covered under EX. A1 policy bearing No.612701/31/03/01454 in respect of the Maruti Zen bearing No.TN 2 H 4230 purchased and owned by the Complainant along with insurance claim with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of claim till realization. Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for legal expenses.

(2.) Complainant/Respondent herein purchased a second-hand Maruti Zen car bearing No. TN-2H-4230 from one, T. Sundhakar Reddy. The vehicle was insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company under policy bearing No. 612701/31/03/01454 for the period from 16.09.03 to 15.09.04. Respondent got the vehicle transferred in his name on 18.02.04. On 3.06.04, the vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. On receiving the intimation, Petitioner appointed the Surveyor, A.C. Reddy to conduct the survey and assess the loss. Surveyor submitted his report on 13.08.04 assessing the loss at Rs.1,60,000/- on market value. Later, the vehicle was taken to Maruti Service Station at Nellore for its repairs. Respondent spent a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- towards repairs and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges. In spite of repeated requests made by the Respondent, Petitioner did not settle the claim. Ultimately, vide letter dated 20.01.05, Petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy stood in the name of third party and there was no intimation to them about the transfer of the vehicle. Complainant/Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) Petitioner on service put in appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint on the grounds; that the Maruti Car was insured by T. Sudhakar Reddy and he did not give any intimation about the transfer of the vehicle; that the policy was issued in the name of T. Sudhakar Reddy and it was not transferred in the name of the Respondent and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable; that in the absence of transfer of policy, the Petitioner was not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the Respondent; that there was violation of the provisions of Section 151 of M.V. Act and GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff;