1. Complainant is the owner of BAJAJ TRAX CRUISER CLASSIC D1 EURO11,having 9 +1 seating with Registration No KL10 X8785 a contract carrier. The vehicle was transferred to the name of complainant from the former owner Mr Aboobacker Siddique as per the endorsement in RC from 29/3/2008 and it was hypothecated to Sri RamTransport Finance Ltd and the entire vehicle particulars were handed over including the indemnification of vehicle through insurance of opposite party
2. On 29/1/2009 the vehicle was met an accident and sustained a heavy damages to it .Then complainant submitted a claim form before opposite party with entire bills in time .Though the claim application was forwarded by the complainant ,opposite party sent the the entire communication to the previous owner of the vehicle. Then at last on 4/1/ 2010 opposite party repudiated the claim
stating that the insured has no insurable interest upon the vehicle at the time of accident. Aggrieved by this complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
3. Complainant prays to direct the opposite party to produce the survey report of the damaged vehicle .He requests to direct the opposite party either to pay sum of Rs 2,07499.25 spent by the complainant for repairing the vehicle or as per the survey report if the opposite party produce the same before the forum. He also requested to give a compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him along with cost of Rs10000.
4. Opposite party filed version. He denies all the averments and allegations of opposite party except those which he specifically admitted. Opposite party states that complainant is not a policy holder, being so he has no contract of insurance with and opposite party .He has no legal liabilities or duty towards complainant. He is not a consumer with in the meaning of consumer protection act. The vehicle involved is a commercial one and was not being used by the complainant for earning his lively hood by means of self employment .At the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by one Balakrishnan. Opposite party admits that he had issued a policy to Mr Abubacker Siddique for the period from30/1 /2008 to 29/1/2009 in respect of the vehicle KL10X8785. He has not informed opposite party about the transfer of the vehicle to the complainant .Hence there arise a violation of GR 17which states as 'on transfer of ownership ,the liability only cover either under a liability only policy or under a package policy is deemed to have been transferred infavour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer .The transferee shall apply with in 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under the recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with details of the registration of the vehicle and the number and date of the policy, so that the
insurer may make the necessary changes in the record and issue fresh certificate of the insurance .Opposite party received an unsigned and undated claim form in respect of the damaged vehicle and assuming it to have been received from the insured,opposite party appointed a surveyor to assess the damage of the alleged vehicle and he submitted a survey report on 4/5/2009.He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 34343.then opposite party directed the insured to submit a duly filled claim form and original registration certificate of the vehicle. .When no reply was received from the policy holder even repeated request opposite party sent a letter to the insured by stating the claim was being repudiated due to the absence of response from the insured. After a while the copy of the Registration Certificate was received to opposite party it is seen that the alleged vehicle had been transferred to Mr Moideenkutty ,the complainant on 29/3/2008.Since Mr AbubackerSiddique,the policy holder had no insurable interest in the vehicle KL 10X 8785 a letter was sent to him stating his claim was repudiated.
5. Complainant has not even entered in to any contract of insurance with Opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost of opposite party.
6. Complainant filed affidavit with documents as evidence. Ext A1to A4 marked on the side of complainant .Opposite party filed counter affidavit. Ext B1 to B7 marked on behalf of him. No oral evidence adduced both sides.
7. Points for consideration:-
1. Whether opposite party is deficient in his services.
2. If so what is the relief and cost.
8. The case of the complainant is that his vehicle with registration No KL10 X8785 met with an accident on21/01/2009 during the existence of valid insurance policy with opposite party and sustained a heavy loss to the vehicle. He filed a claim application along with entire bills to opposite party in time .But opposite party rejected the .claim .He content that complainant has not entered any contract of insurance with opposite party .The alleged vehicle was insured with opposite party on 30/01/2008to 29/ 01/2009by the previous owner of the vehicle Mr Abubacker Siddique. He transferred the vehicle to the complainant on 29/03/2008 and it was endorsed in the RC of the vehicle also. At the same day the vehicle was hypothecated to ShreeRam Transport Finance and the entire vehicle particulars were handed over to the Financier including indemnification of the vehicle through insurance of opposite party .Though the claim application was submitted by the complainant, the entire communications were sent by opposite party to the previous owner of the vehicle and then after one year opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the insured had no insurable interest at the time of accident. Admittedly the relevant time of accident the policy was in the name of the previous owner Mr Abubacker Siddique and the RC owner is the complainant. The vehicle was transferred to the complainant on 29/03/2008and the accident was occurred 21/01 /2009 .ExtB2 shows that complainant submitted claim form before opposite party with necessary documents. Opposite party appointed a surveyor to assess the damages He submitted report with every details But opposite party sent every communications to the previous owner of the vehicle Opposite party directed him to produce the original RC of the vehicle and to file a duly filled up claim form but complainant had not got any information from opposite party. Then he rejected the claim stating that he had not got any response from policy holder. Opposite party content that he was not received any information about the transfer of the vehicle to the name of complainant. But complainant already produced the claim form along with bills and related documents including copy of registration certificate to opposite party So he can understand about the transfer of the vehicle from the record. First time opposite party rejected the claim stating that he had not received any response from the policy holder After receiving original RC he stated. the previous owner has lost his insurable interest upon the vehicle. He content that though the vehicle was transferred to the complainant, the policy was not transferred to his name and hence the complainant has no privity of contract with opposite party. From the above contentions it is clear that opposite party is not ready to indemnify the damages sustained to the complainant. Opposite party has no dispute regarding the existence of valid policy upon the vehicle The accident is also admitted. Opposite party engaged his surveyor to assess the damages of the vehicle and he submitted his report. But opposite party taken a stand that the policy holder as well as registered owner of the vehicle has not liable to get any relief from him. Such stand of opposite party is not justifiable and so it amounts deficiency of service. There fore we hold that opposite party is deficient in their service towards the complainant. The position is now well settled by the Apex commission in its various Judgments .Even if the policy is not transferred in the name of the RC owner the insurer is liable to indemnify the loss sustained to the vehicle because the subject matter is a vehicle not a particular person Ext B1 shows that the alleged vehicle was insured with opposite party on 31/01 /2008 to29 /01/2009.The accident was occurred on21/01/2009,which is with in the period of policy. The vehicle was transferred to the complainant on29/03/2008and it was endorsed in the RC .The vehicle was hypothecated to ShreeRam Transport Finance on the same day. So the registered owner of the vehicle ie the complainant is liable to get the loss sustained to him.
9. Complainant prays to get either a sum of Rs 207499.25 which he spent for the repairs of the alleged vehicle .or as per the survey report if the opposite party produce before the court .Opposite party produced the survey report before the Forum and it is marked as Ext B7.The insurance surveyor assessed the damages as Rs 36943(Rupees Thirty six thousand Nine hundred and forty three only)in total after deducting the depreciation ,policy excess and salvage value. Complainant has not raised any disputes against Ext B 7, the survey report. So from the above discussion we hold that opposite party is liable to give the amount as per the assessment made by the surveyor. He also liable to give 10% interest per annum for this amount.
10. In the result we allowed the complaint and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs 36943(Rupees Thirty Six thousand ,Nine hundred and Forty three only) with interest 10% per annum from the date of complaint till payment along with cost of Rs 2000 with in one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2012 .
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
