Karnataka High Court
Mr. A. Supreeth vs The Regional Transport Officer (Rto) on 14 September, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.12578/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
MR. A. SUPREETH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
SON OF MR. R. ANANTHA KRISHNA,
RESIDING AT NO.418/13, 5TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADV. )
AND
1.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTO)
RAJAJINAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 010.
2.THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
REGIONAL OFFICE,
MOTOR SERVICE HUB,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. A.S. PONNANNA, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL
a/w Sri. V. SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1
Sri. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ATICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO AMEND AND ISSUE THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE (RC) BEARING NO. RCA0020391 REFLECTING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA 03 MX 9358
WITH EFFECT FROM 06.03.2016 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein, a practicing lawyer at Bangalore is seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to issue the Registration Certificate bearing No.RCA0020391 reflecting the petitioner as owner of car bearing Registration No. KA 03 MX 9358 with effect from 6.3.2017 and for a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 5.2.2018 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting his claim vide Annexure-A and also for a direction to the said respondent to process his claim once again and to consider settlement of his claim pursuant to said representation and for further orders.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner herein purchased motor car bearing Registration No.KA 03 MX 9358 from one Mr.Ankur Khanna, on 06.03.2017 as could be seen from Form 29 which is produced at 3 Annexure-B. Thereafter he applied to the 1st respondent seeking transfer of registration of aforesaid vehicle to his name on 24.3.2017.
3. The records would indicate that when the application seeking transfer of the vehicle was pending consideration before the 1st respondent, the policy issued to the vehicle in question by the 2nd respondent expired necessitating the petitioner to seek renewal of the policy to the aforesaid vehicle. As on the date when the policy expired, the possession of the vehicle in question was with the petitioner vide Annexure-B. As required under the Motor Vehicles Act, petitioner had applied for transfer of ownership to his name, since the application filed seeking transfer of the vehicle was pending consideration, the insurance company had not renewed the policy of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner though the premium is received from him, as could be seen from the unmarked document produced by the petitioner, on 7.6.2018 where the receipt issued for receiving the premium would indicate the particulars of the petitioner, his phone number, as the person who renewed the policy and the 4 cheque is received by him from his father's account for and on behalf of the registered owner and the policy issued also would reflect the address of the petitioner and his E-Mail address as well as telephone number, his communication address.
4. When matter stood thus, on 23.11.2017 the said vehicle met with an accident resulting in extensive damage to it. Thereafter an order was passed by the 1st respondent effecting transfer of the aforesaid vehicle from the name of Ankur Khanna to the name of the petitioner by order dated 7.12.2017. Subsequently, an application is made by the petitioner seeking transfer of the policy to his name in the records of 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, he also filed an application seeking awarding of compensation to the petitioner under own damage claim. The said claim came to be rejected by order dated 5.2.2018 vide Annexure-A which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
5. In this proceedings the 2nd respondent insurance company is trying to be hyper technical in relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations 5 (P) Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (1996)1 SCC 221 which is rendered by the Full Bench of the Apex Court wherein while considering Section 157 of the M.V. Act as it appears in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, the risk and liability of the insurer is discussed at length in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment, wherein the Apex Court has discussed, the liability of the insurer so far as it pertains to third party risk and as well as own damage risk. The said discussion is tried to be relied upon in support of the 2nd respondent to deny the claim of the petitioner on the premise that as on the date of the accident, the petitioner was not the registered owner and the vehicle did not stand in his name. The ownership was not transferred and the deemed transfer would not entitle the petitioner to claim compensation under own damage claim.
6. The said defence is countered by the petitioner relying upon the recent judgment rendered by another Full Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Mallamma (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 137 particularly with reference 6 to paragraph 4 of the said judgment which deals with the claim of the petitioners seeking compensation under own damage claim.
7. Both judgments are looked into in the background of the facts as narrated in the writ petition. Admittedly, the transfer of the vehicle infact has taken place on 6.3.2017 as could be seem from Annexure-B which is Form No.29 evidencing sale of the vehicle and transfer of possession by the vendor to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that thereafter an application seeking transfer of ownership is filed on 24.3.2017, in strict sense, what is seen is transfer of title and possession to the petitioner has taken place on 6.3.2017 itself, which is required to be registered in his name in completing the formality of transferring the vehicle to petitioner's name, in accordance with the procedure required to be followed under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is at this juncture when the application for transfer was pending consideration the policy issued to the vehicle expired. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for renewal of the policy, on 19.4.2017, by paying the premium through a 7 cheque seeking issuance of the policy in his name. It is stated that since application for transfer of ownership of vehicle was pending with 1st respondent RTO, the policy is issued to the said vehicle at the instance of the petitioner in the name of previous owner Ankur Khanna. Since the ownership and possession of vehicle having got transferred to the name of the petitioner on 6.3.2017, what was awaited as on that date was the relevant endorsement of transfer of ownership to the name of the petitioner when he approached the 2nd respondent insurer for issuance of policy. The document on record would indicate that the 2nd respondent insurer having accepted the premium money from the account of the petitioner has renewed the policy commencing from 19.4.2017 and as could be seen from the policy, the premium amount is received by cheque issued by the petitioner and it is his address and his telephone number which is reflected on the policy thereby indicating that the petitioner himself has got the policy renewed as on 19.4.2017 and the issuance of the same in the name of Ankur Khanna is just a formality as the vehicle was still standing in his name in the R.C. 8 book which was not transferred and it was pending consideration.
8. Pausing for a while at this stage, this court would observe that as the 1st respondent had failed to consider the application, as it was required to complete the said formality within one week, the petitioner had to undergo the torture of going through all these procedures. Therefore, in the entire process, the culprit is the 1st respondent RTO in not acting as required under the Rules after receiving the application. It is seen that the 1st respondent RTO after receiving the application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle on 24.3.2017, did not act upon said application until 6.12.2017 i.e., subsequent to the accident taking place on 23.11.2017. Between 24.3.2017 to that date, no communication was sent either for accepting the application for transferring the vehicle in the name of the petitioner or rejecting the application filed seeking transfer. It is only after the accident when the petitioner came and enquired the status of the application filed on 6.12.2017, he was informed to secure clearance certificate from the previous RTO where the 9 vehicle was registered in the name of the transferor. It is at the instance of the 1st respondent the petitioner had to approach the said RTO however the endorsement issued by said RTO, which is an unnumbered document bearing No.M1215553/CM4856131/ 20.4.2016, issued by the RTO, Bangalore (East), produced with a memo dated 26.04.2018 would indicate that there is no provision for issue of clearance certificate.
9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, what could be seen is, though there is no such practice of seeking clearance from the other RTO, the application of the petitioner was kept pending by giving a lame excuse that the authority was waiting for issuance of a clearance certificate from the RTO where the vehicle was earlier registered and the petitioner is made to run from pillar to post to secure the same and thereafter, transfer order is issued in his name. In the bargain, the petitioner had to suffer this litigation. The endorsement of insurer in rejecting his claim is produced vide Annexure-A.
10. In this background when the entire material available on record with reference to two judgments which are 10 cited above are seen, neither the earlier judgment rendered in the matter of Complete Insulations (P) Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited or the subsequent judgment in Mallamma Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, would deny the right of petitioner to seek compensation under own damage claim. No doubt, while discussing the provisions of Section 157, their Lordships in the matter of Complete Insulations (P) Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited have observed that what would be the liability of the insurance to third parties and also to that of the claimants under own damage claim with reference to the registration of the vehicle in their name. However, the same would not take away the right of the petitioner as it is seen in the present set of facts that as on 6.3.2017 itself the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to him and that on 24.3.2017 he had already applied for transfer of ownership to his name. It is subsequent to that, when his application was still pending consideration, the policy has expired and at that juncture the petitioner himself has applied for issuance of policy to the vehicle which is transferred to his name and it is because of the lethargic act of the 1st respondent 11 in issuing endorsement in transferring the ownership of the vehicle from the name of erstwhile owner Ankur Khanna to the name of the petitioner, policy is issued in the name of Ankur Khanna, in effect, it is issued far and on behalf of the transferee after receiving the premium amount from him with reference to the said vehicle.
11. In that view of the matter, there is a concluded contract between the petitioner who has tendered the premium amount to the said vehicle in the name of the erstwhile owner when the application filed by him seeking transfer was pending. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as a policy issued in the name of Ankur Khanna and it is subsequently required to be transferred to the transferee after the sale of the vehicle. In the instant case, the policy given is being slightly different from the earlier two cases, the condition referred to at para.10 of Complete Insulations (P) Limited's case would not apply to the facts of case on hand. Per contra, the observation made by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Mallamma's case particularly at para 4 of the judgment would apply to the instant 12 case and therefore, the petitioner in the instant case would be entitled to receive the compensation for the damages suffered to his vehicle during the interregnum period when the application for transfer was pending before the 1st respondent-Authority.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by quashing Annexure-A and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the assessment made by the Surveyor with reference to the damage suffered to the vehicle and it is made clear that the claim which is already filed long back shall be cleared within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Now coming to the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent- RTO, the person who was heading the office where the application was submitted is responsible for all these misery of the petitioner and unwanted litigation to this Court. When the learned Addl. Advocate General was called upon to say who is the concerned officer, he would bring to the notice of this Court, the concerned officer is one, a senior RTO who was heading that office. Since that person is not a party before this Court, this 13 Court is of the opinion, passing any order against his interest would not be appropriate. Therefore this court would direct the Secretary, Transport Department to find out the person who was in charge of that office at the relevant point of time and initiate proceedings against him in not being diligent in managing his office properly and allow the application filed for simple task of transfer of ownership, being kept pending for more than six months, and conduct an enquiry, if necessary, by keeping him under suspension, thereafter pass an order imposing suitable punishment.
In view of dismissal of writ petition, I.A.1/18 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: