Thota Uday Kiran Kumar Vs. the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1107323
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnJul-01-2013
Case NumberFAIA 1363 of 2013 in FASR 3590 of 2013 against CC 131 of 2012, Dist. Forum, Guntur
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
AppellantThota Uday Kiran Kumar
RespondentThe Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
Excerpt:
oral order: (m. shreesha, member) 1) aggrieved by the order in cc no. 131/2012 on the file of the dist. forum, guntur the complainant preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 161 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that copy of the order was despatched on 11.2.2013 and the same was received by him on 19.2.2013 through his counsel and as he is working for a mobile phone company as marketing executive he could not contact his counsel and when he approached his counsel he advised him to prefer an appeal as he has got a good case and fair chances of winning the matter and in the process a delay of 161 days had occasioned. the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor wilful and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned. 2) in the light of the fact that delay was whopping 161 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner/appellant in regard to its plea. the provisions of civil procedure code or provisions of limitation act do not apply to the proceedings under the consumer protection act to order notice before resolving the issue. the matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc. 3) the honble supreme court in anshu agarawal vs. new okhla industrial development authority reported in iv (2011) cpj 63 (sc) opined “it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the consumer protection act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras. with the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.” 4) the honble apex court in cicily kallarackal vs. vehicle factory reported in iv (2012) cpj 1 (sc) 1 reiterated that: ‘condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this court in place of period prescribed by legislator for filing slp. therefore we do not see any cogent reason to condone delay.” in the light of above decisions and in the light of the fact that petitioner could not explain day to day delay nor substantiated by way of documentary proof and failed to show sufficient, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 161 days. 5) even otherwise on merits, we are of the considered view that there is no concluding contract between the appellant/complainant and the opposite party insurance company as the policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant by the date of accident. even an application for transfer has not been made, even if we take into consideration the argument of the appellant/complainant that the vehicle met with an accident within one week of its purchase. when there is no document substantiating that an application has been made for transfer, relying on gr-17 is unsustainable. 6) the honble supreme court in rikhi ram and anr. vs. sukhrania and ors.- (2003) 3 scc 97, while interpreting the provisions of section 157 held that 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. 7) the national commission in madan singh vs. united india insurance co. ltd. and anr. – 1 (2009) cpj 158 (nc), after considering the entire facts of the case, has held that in the case of own damage, unless and until the policy is transferred in the name of new owner, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss. in view of the provisions of the motor vehicles act and the tariff regulations and the decisions of the supreme court, 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 vehicle. petitioner insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim. 8) taking into consideration that the policy was not transferred in the name of appellant/complainant by the time of accident and following the decisions of national commission and honble supreme court with regard to transfer of policy, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the dist. forum. 9) in the result this petition is dismissed consequently the appeal is rejected. no costs.
Judgment:

Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member)

1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 131/2012 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Guntur the complainant preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 161 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that copy of the order was despatched on 11.2.2013 and the same was received by him on 19.2.2013 through his counsel and as he is working for a Mobile Phone company as Marketing Executive he could not contact his counsel and when he approached his counsel he advised him to prefer an appeal as he has got a good case and fair chances of winning the matter and in the process a delay of 161 days had occasioned. The petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor wilful and therefore prayed that the delay be condoned.

2) In the light of the fact that delay was whopping 161 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the petitioner/appellant in regard to its plea. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code or provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act to order notice before resolving the issue. The matters have to be resolved by applying principles of natural justice, equity, etc.

3) The Honble Supreme Court in Anshu Agarawal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) opined

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras. With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.”

4) The Honble Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory reported in IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) 1 reiterated that:

‘condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of period prescribed by Legislator for filing SLP. Therefore we do not see any cogent reason to condone delay.”

In the light of above decisions and in the light of the fact that petitioner could not explain day to day delay nor substantiated by way of documentary proof and failed to show sufficient, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 161 days.

5) Even otherwise on merits, we are of the considered view that there is no concluding contract between the appellant/complainant and the opposite party insurance company as the policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant by the date of accident. Even an application for transfer has not been made, even if we take into consideration the argument of the appellant/complainant that the vehicle met with an accident within one week of its purchase. When there is no document substantiating that an application has been made for transfer, relying on GR-17 is unsustainable.

6) The Honble Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram and Anr. vs. Sukhrania and Ors.- (2003) 3 SCC 97, while interpreting the provisions of Section 157 held that 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.

7) The National Commission in Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. – 1 (2009) CPJ 158 (NC), after considering the entire facts of the case, has held that in the case of own damage, unless and until the policy is transferred in the name of new owner, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss. In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, 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 vehicle. Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.

8) Taking into consideration that the policy was not transferred in the name of appellant/complainant by the time of accident and following the decisions of National Commission and Honble Supreme Court with regard to transfer of policy, we do not see any grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the Dist. Forum.

9) In the result this petition is dismissed consequently the appeal is rejected. No costs.