C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          Brief facts of the complaint’s case  are follows:

          The complainant purchased a   Hundai, Getz car on 18-11-2009 from A.K. Ramani.  It was insured with the opposite party vide private car package policy.  The policy issued on 2610-2009, valid from 25-10-2009.  The complainant duly filed application for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle before the registering Authority Ernakulam  with effect from 25-1-2010.  Due to non availability of necessary form of registration certificate, the registering Authority issued the certificate of registration only on 19-3-2009.  During the period of transfer, on 12-02-2010, the vehicle met with an  accident at Thottakkatukara Junction near Aluva  by a tipper lorry, the taillight was broken, and bumper and panels were damaged.  On 13-02-2010 the accident was informed to the opposite party and got information that to be approached  the authorized service centre.  The  service centre informed  that to undertake the work under insurance coverage they need the registration certificate of the vehicle.   After getting the registration certificate and transfer of insurance policy, the complainant approached the opposite party  and filed a claim.   Though the opposite party duly conducted a  survey in respect of the damages.  But they repudiated the claim stating that the policy conditions are violated. The opposite party was not ready to provide cashless service under the policy the complainant has taken steps to repair the vehicle in  Lakshmi auto care. Kaloor.  Kochi on 03-05-2010. The workshop charged Rs. 14,850/-.  The complainant paid the amount and sent the bill to the opposite party with a request to reimburse the amount.   But the opposite party was not ready to settle the claim.  The complainant contented that the stand taken by the opposite party is   unfair trade practice.  That the opposite      party under the policy is liable to make good any loss due to damage to the vehicle in accident during the period mentioned in the policy namely from 25-10-2009 to 24-10- 2010  and to extend cashless service.  The vehicle was under the cover of the same insurance during the whole period when it was held by the previous owner and there after the complainant.  On the date of accident the complainant was the owner and driver.  The insurer is liable to reimburse the bill.  Hence this complaint. 

          The complaint is filed for seeking following reliefs against the opposite party . To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 14,850/- towards  repair charges of complainants car dated 03-05-2010 paid by him  to Lakshmi Auto Care, Kaloor, Kochi and for compensation  of Rs. 3,000/- together with  costs of the proceedings.

          2. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

          The insurance policy of the car was transferred into the name of the complainant as per his application dated  20-03-2010 is true and  admitted by the opposite party. The complainant is admitted that the accident was occurred on 12-02-2010 and during that time the insurance policy was in the name of the earlier owner of the vehicle.  And there was no intimation of the change of ownership of the vehicle and no application for change of insurance policy into the name of the complainant were submitted before the opposite party on or before the concerned accident.   The complainant failed to comply with section  157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Indian Motor Tariff in not intimating the factum of the change in ownership of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of transfer to the insurer and thereby violated the statutory requirements.    The vehicle  was transferred into the name of the complaint with effect from 25-01-2010, the accident was occurred on 12-02-2010 and applied for change of the insurance policy into the name only on 20-03-2010.  Immediately after the intimation of the accident, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and thereafter, the surveyor assess the loss to the tune of Rs. 11,633/- which is payable on fulfillment of terms and conditions of the policy.  Opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant because at the material time of accident there was no  contract of insurance in between the complainant and the opposite party.

          3. The complainant appeared in person.  The opposite party appeared through  the counsel. The complainant examined as PW1.  Ext. A1 to A4 were marked on his side.  The opposite party has not adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.  The complainant filed argument notes.

          The points that came out for our determination.

i.                    Whether the complainant is entitled to get the insurance  claim or not?

ii.                  Compensation and costs if any?

4. Points Nos. i&ii.  The case of the complainant is that during the pendency of application dated 14-02-2009for transfer of the ownership in favour of him, his vehicle met with an accident on 12/02/2010 and got damaged.   The registering Authority gave the certificate only on 19-03-2009.  The reason for repudiation of the insurance claim is that complainant does not have any insurance contract with opposite party at the material time of accident.

As per  that Ext. A1 policy certificate,  the period of Insurance is  ”From 25/11/2009 to 24/11/2010.  The accident of the vehicle occurred on 12-02-2010.  The document before us to shows that at the time of accident the complainant has  valid insurance policy with the opposite party.

Even though the opposite party  averred that they issued the policy only on 23/03/2010 that is after  the accident.  But   the policy issued in favour of the complainant goes to show that the accident was occurred within the currency of the policy.  Hence whatever may be the argument advanced by the complainant we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim.  After the accident the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of the opposite party. Opposite party averred that the loss assessed to the tune of Rs. 11,633/-.  But the opposite party failed to produced the  surveyor’s  report.  The complainant agreed in the complaint as well his deposition that the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor.  The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Sri. Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and another (SC) (CP) 2009 CTJ – P. 1189 “insurance surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under he provision of the Insurance Act.  Their reports are to be given due  importance and there should be sufficient grounds for not agreeing with the assent made by them.” In the instant case there is nothing on record to overcome or set aside the findings in the survey report submitted by the surveyor as agreed by both  parties.  Though the complainant has produced Ext. A2 bill issued  by Laxmi Auto Care, Kaloor.  However no steps has been taken to substantiate the veracity of Ext. A2.  Therefore we are not placing any reliance on Ext. A2. Hence  complainant is entitled to get the insurance  claim as per the surveyor’s report.

In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not order any compensation and costs.

In short we partly allow the complaint  and direct as  follows:

The opposite party shall  pay the Insurance claim to the complainant on the basis  of  the surveyor’s report.

The above said order shall be complied with within a period of  one month from the date of receipt  of a copy of the order failing which the opposite party shall pay  interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the  31st day March 2011.