BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH,                                                                                              MANGALORE

Dated this the 19^th November 2016

PRESENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D          :  HONBLE PRESIDENT

 SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                       : MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.46/2013

(Admitted on 06.02.2013)

Smt. Pavithra Keshava,

Wife of Keshava,

Aged about 35 years,

Residing at Apporva house,

Near Udyawara Mada Temple,

Post Kunjathur, Kasaragod District,

Kerala State  670121.

                                             ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: T.P)

VERSUS

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd,

ICICI Lombard House 414.Veer Savkar Marg,

Near Sidhi Vinayaka Temple, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai  400025, Maharastra State,

Represented by Authorized Signatory.

2. Mandovi Motors Private Limited,

Arvind Building, Balmatta Road,

Hampankatta Mangalore  575001,

Represented by Authorised Signatory.

                                                             ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1: HM)

 (Advocate for the Opposite Parties NO.2: MRB)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

      The complainant contends she insured her vehicle KL 14.H.215 insured with opposite party No.1 for the period of 08.07.2012 to 07.07.2013.  The complainant was eking her live hood by running the vehicle on hire relative Kiran Kumar.  On 5.10.12 the vehicle met with an accident.  It was towed to opposite party No.2 s workshop. As per survey report the damage was considered total loss as the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,15,000/.  While insuring her vehicle the complainant nominated Kiran Kumar for PA.  The official of opposite party No.1 who came to complainants residence obtained her signature and also of Kiran Kumar on several papers.  However the claim of complainant was repudiated by opposite party No.1 and by letter dated 21.12.2012 opposite party No.1 intimated that there was no insurable interest to complainant as it was purchased by Kiran Kumar and RC and insurance policy were not transferred.  Opposite party No.2 informed complainant she has to pay 100/ per day towards parking charges.  Complainant got issued notice to opponents claiming 1,15,000/ with interest and another Rs. 50,000/ towards loos and compensation which was not complaint. 

II.   Opposite party No.2 filed version contending that it is not a necessary party to the proceedings.  Opposite party No.2 being a dealer and authorised repairer for non transport Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., provided only facility to policy at his premises.  Towing of the damaged vehicle is admitted.  Opposite party No.2 is unable to permit customers to keep the vehicle in his place for unlimited time hence seeks dismissal.

2.     The version of opposite party No.1 is admission of insurance coverage issued to the vehicle KL 14.H.215 with validity till 7.7.2012 for a sum of coverage being 1,15,.000/  the only ground urged by opposite party No.2 to repudiate claim of complainant is as per the investigation report pertaining to the claim of complainant the complainant has sold the vehicle to one Kiran Kumar and he was in possession as owner and one lokesh was the driver of the  vehicle.  Hence the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle.  Hence seeks dismissal of complainant.

3.      In support of the above complainant Smt. Pavithra Keshava filed affidavit evidence as Cw1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C7 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mrs. Madhumati Hegde, Manager Legal (Rw1) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R3 detailed in the annexure here below.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainantis entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

 We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No. (i): Affirmative

Point No. (ii): Affirmative

 Point No. (iii): As per the final order.           

                                                                                              REASONS

IV.      POINTS No. (i)& (ii): The complainant insured the vehicle in question with opposite party No.1 and that the vehicle met with an accident and the policy issued by opposite party No.1 have the coverage when the accident took place in respect of the vehicle is admitted.  However opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant had sold the vehicle to one Kiran Kumar but the RC and insurance policy were not changed the policy to the name of Kiran Kumar.  However the claim of complainant is that there was no sale instead she had at the time of insuring the vehicle with the opposite party No.1 nominated Kiran Kumar her relative for the purpose of PA presumably for personal accident. 

2.      As to the contention of opposite party that the complainant had no insurable interest.  Opposite party denies on Ex.R7 and intimation given by said Kiran Kumar N to opposite party No.1 mentioning that the accident took place involving that vehicle on 5.10.2012 on 11.30 am Ex.R8 is the copy of letter addressed by lokesh to opposite party N o.1 mentioning that he was the driver of Kiran Kumar and he was driving the car KL 14.H.215 Maruti Omni an accident took place about 11.30 am.

3.     The learned counsel for complainant attempt genuine on Ex. however at once stage complainant claims even in the complainant this Kiran Kumar is her relative and she got entered Kiran Kumar as nominee  PA in insurance policy At Ex.C3 there is entry in the column pertaining to the nominee detail for compulsory PA.

4.     The meaning of the word nominee is a person selected by the policy holder to receive the benefit in case of the death of the life insured thus giving a valid discharge to the insurer on settlement to claim under a life insurance policy.  Thus from the above we can make out the mention of the name Kiran Kumar is only as a nominee for personal accident claims in respect of complainant were  and not other.  At no street of imagination this nomination can be construed for any other purpose.   Hence such mention made in the insurance policy is not of any help to complainant.

5.     The learned for complainant by referring to Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act argued the person in whose name the RC stands is the owner of the vehicle with all liabilities attached in respect of the vehicle.  When, it was argued, the RC is not transferred the complainant is entitled to remedies available to an RC owner and sought to dispel the authenticity of the two statements as per Ex.R7 and R8 referred earlier.  But however considering that Kiran Kumar even according to complainant being her relative there is no explanation why he should make a statement against interest of complainant of purchasing the vehicle about 7 months earlier.  Hence we are not willing to accept this argument for complainant.  Hence we are of the view that the contention of op that the vehicle was sold by complainant and that the interest and such sale are not intimated to the insurer is established by opponent No.1.   Hence the repudiation of the claim by opposite party No.1 in our consider view is justified.  Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative. 

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                           The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 19^th November 2016)

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Smt. Pavithra Keshava

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:                Notarized copy of the R.C of the Maruthi Omni vehicle bearing Registration KL 14.H.215

Ex.C2: 6.10.2012 Notarized copy of the Certificate issued By the S.H.O Manjeshwar Police Station

Ex.C3: 7.07.2012 Original Package Policy issued by the Opposite party No.1

Ex.C4: 21.12.2012 Original repudiation letter written by the Opposite party No.1

Ex.C5: 08.01.2013 Office copy of the legal Notice issued by the complainant to the oppositeparty

Ex.C6: 10.01.2013 Original Postal Acknowledgement for having served the legal notice to the Opposite party No.2

Ex.C7: 11.01.2013  Original Postal Acknowledgement for having served the legal notice to the Opposite party No.1     

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mrs. Madhumati Hegde

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Copy of Authorization letters

Ex.R2: O/c of reply notice dated 22.11.2013

Ex.R3: copy of Postal Acknowledgment

Dated:  19.11.2016                   PRESIDENT