IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.3/10 (Filed on 01.01.2010)
Between:
Balachandran,
Pranavam Veedu,
Padukottackal,
Pandalam Thekkekara,
Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Complainant
And:
Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is the registered owner and possessor of a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KL-3H/1781. He had purchased the said vehicle on 21.11.06 from Latha Radhakrishnan, Thoppil House, Kurambala, Adoor. After the purchase the vehicle transferred in the name of complainant from Adoor R.T.O. After that LPG gas conversion fitted in the said vehicle. On 8.3.07 the mechanism has changed by using the facility of either petrol or LPG gas. The said diversion has intimated to R.T.O, Adoor and they endorsed it in the registration certificate book.
3. On 21.8.08 at 4 p.m. complainant was on the way from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram, met with an accident in which he sustained minor injuries and the vehicle was seriously damaged. Complainant approached with the opposite party to assess the damages and accordingly they assessed it as ` 75,000 as repairing charges. Complainant on 18.9.07 claimed the said amount from opposite party but they repudiated it on 24.4.08 even though the vehicle having valid insurance policy. Complainant himself driven the vehicle at the time of accident. He has having valid driving licence. The denial of complainant’s claim is a clear deficiency of service, hence this complaint for getting the claim amount with interest, compensation and cost.
4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. They admit the issuance of policy in name of Smt. Lekha Radhakrishnan. But claim has been put up by complainant herein stating that the vehicle sustained loss due to an accident on 21.8.07. According to opposite party there is no privity of contact exist between the complainant and insurance company on 21.8.07. The said day policy stood in the name of Smt. Lekha Radhakrishnan.
5. According to opposite party the ownership of the vehicle suffered a transfer on 29.1.06 to the complainant. The transfer endorsement also is with effect from 29.11.06. The transfer application has been made by the complainant himself in which he has clearly mentioned that the transfer is with effect from 29.11.06. On the alleged date of loss the complainant cannot claim benefit under the policy, as he has no privity of insurance contract. As on 21.8.07 the complainant is a total stranger to the contract of insurance. He has no locus standi to claim benefit under the policy, there he steps into the shoes of the insured through due process of law and rules. The previous owner never came forward with any claim.
6. The provision that governs the transfer of ownership is GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. GR 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff reads as follows:-
“The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in its record and issue fresh certificate of insurance”. In the instant case GR 17 has not been complied by the complainant, therefore he has no right to claim under the policy. The accident took place on 21.8.07 and hence the complainant is not entitled to get the claim. On 21.8.07 the complainant had no insurable interest with the opposite party”.
7. Moreover the vehicle insured is a petrol engine as per the registration certificate. But at the time of the alleged accident it was fitted with LPG fuel kit, whereas the policy has been opted by the complainant for petrol vehicle as recorded in the registration certificate. The said act amounts to alteration and the same is done without the consent of the registering authority or the insurance company. Such an alteration behind the back of the insurance company and the registering authority makes the policy void consequent to material alteration as it is violation of the conditions stipulated in the terms and conditions of the policy. That reason also is sufficient to hold that the claim is not payable. During the inspection of the surveyor it was found that LPG was fitted in the vehicle and it was not endorsed with the registering authority or premium to be paid. Thus the material fact has not been disclosed and as such there is violation of the principles of utmost good faith. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service in their part. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
8. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint is allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
9. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. Documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A5.
10. Evidence of the opposite party consists of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party along with certain documents. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
11. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to At. Ext.A1 is the copy of R.C. Book of the Maruti Car No.KL.3/H-1781. Ext.A2 is the copy of insurance certificate issued by the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of motor claim form. Ext.A4 is the copy of driving licence of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the repudiation letter dated 24.4.08 issued by opposite party.
12. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. Documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the attested copy of GR 17. Ext.B2 is the attested copy of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
13. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record. Complainant’s case is that his vehicle having valid insurance coverage as per Ext.A2. The said vehicle met with an accident which caused a loss of ` 75000. His claim was repudiated by opposite party. According to opposite party, there is no dispute regarding the accident and coverage of the policy. Opposite parties dispute is that complainant has not transferred the insurance certificate from the previous owner. Therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company. Moreover complainant has fitted LPG to the vehicle and was not endorsed with the registering authority or premium to be paid.
14. On a perusal of record it is evident that complainant has purchased the vehicle on 21.11.06 and the transfer of ownership has also done on the same day from RTO, Adoor. But the transfer of insurance certificate has not yet done till 21.8.07, the date of accident. With regard to the allegation of LPG kit fitted in vehicle without the consent of the registering authority or the insurance company, we cannot find any nexus with the accident in this case. Therefore, the said allegation is not sustainable.
15. On a perusal of Ext.A2, it is pertinent to note that complainant has not changed the insurance certificate from the previous owner. He has not complied the GR 17 as stipulated in Ext.B1. Therefore on 29.11.06, the date of accident complainant cannot claim benefit under Ext.A2 policy, as he has no privity of insurance contract. In the above situation we do admit that complainant has no locus standi to claim benefit under the policy. Hence we find that opposite party is rightly repudiated as per Ext.A5 and it need not want any interference. Hence we find any deficiency of service or negligence on opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, compliant is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of December, 2010.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of R.C. Book of the Maruti Car No.KL.3/H-1781.
A2 : Photocopy of insurance certificate issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
A3 : Photocopy of motor claim form issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
A4 : Photocopy of driving licence of the complainant.
A5 : Photocopy of registered letter dated 24.4.08 issued by opposite party
to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
B1 : Photocopy of GR 17.
B2 : Terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Balachandran, Pranavam Veedu, Padukottackal,
Pandalam Thekkekara, Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta. (2) Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
