SMT.G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT

          Complainant’s case is that  when he approached  the opp.party  for renewing policy for his vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-03 P-5244, the opp.party informed him  that the policy will be  renewed  only after seeing the vehicle, that on 28.8.2008  he went to the office of  the opp.party at about  11 a.m.  with the vehicle, that  after seeing the vehicle  the opp.party  issued policy No.441402/31/2009/6808 , that the policy was issued  in the name of previous RC owner  Sri. George Zakariya   since the complainant had  given the RC book before the RTO for changing the ownership after closing  HP  loan, that  on the same day  at about 1.30 p.m. the vehicle met with an accident  near Enathu Police Station  and the Enathu police had registered Crime No. 268/08 , that the above incident was  informed  to the opp.party  and as per their direction  the vehicle was produced  before AVG Motors for maintenance, that  thereafter  the complainant filed  claim  along with bills before the opp.party, that  thereafter  the complainant received a letter from the opp.party stating “No Claim”.  Hence this complaint.

Opp.party filed version contenting that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts,  that the complainant has approached this forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts regarding the case, that the complainant in this case  is totally a stranger to this opp.party with whom  no contract of insurance was subsisting  with this opp.party  in respect of his vehicle bearing Reg. No KL-03-P-5244   as on the alleged  date of the occurrence , that  in the absence of an insurance contract between the complainant and this opp.party  he is not at all a consumer of this opp.party as on the date of accident and he has no manner of cause of action  to raise a consumer dispute  against this opp.party  in the subject matter  in this complaint,   that the opp.party  issued a comprehensive insurance policy for the  vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-03-P-5244 in favour of  one Mr. George.V. Zakariya for a period commencing from 31.7.2007 to 30.7.2008, that after  expiry of the above policy the same got renewed  on 28.8.08  ie. , after 28 days from the date of expiry of the previous policy, that at the time of renewal of the policy  a proposal form  along with previously expired policy was submitted before the opp.party, that  in the proposal form  submitted by the proposer  the renewal policy  is sought  for a period from 29.8.2008  to 28.8.2009, that  since the vehicle was not produced for physical verification  especially  when there is a break in policy, the opp.party renewed the policy  for a period  commencing from 29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009  in favour of  Mr.George.V. Zakariya  on the basis of the proposal form submitted by the party, that thereafter  the complainant approached this opp.party on 4.9.2008 with a request to transfer the above insurance policy in his name  stating that he was the owner of the vehicle  and the ownership has been changed in his name  in the RC book as well , that the complainant has remitted the necessary transfer fee and the service charge etc.   required to be paid by him for transferring the policy in his name, that the opp.party  thereafter transferred the policy in his name  with effect from 4.9.2008 to 28.8.2009  after noting transfer endorsement in the insurance policy, that the complainant thereafter reported a claim before this opp.party on 24.9.08 stating that the vehicle met with an accident as early on 28.8.08  ie. , one day prior to the commencement of the insurance policy in the name of the previous owner, that the opp.party while verifying the RC book  of the vehicle found that  the ownership of the vehicle has been changed in the name of the complainant on 5.8.2008 itself, but the complainant suppressed the above change of ownership of the vehicle in his name and  managed to renew the insurance policy in the name of the previous owner George.V. Zakariya with effect from 29.8.2008 itself, that the opp.party  in the meantime appointed a surveyor and he inspected the vehicle and submitted the survey report with his specific finding that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle in the RC book with effect from 5.8.2008, whereas  the insurance policy has been  renewed  in the name of the previous policy holder  George.V. Zakariya  with effect from 29.8.2008  to.28.8.2009  and the accident occurred on 28.8.2008  when there was no insurance policy in the name of the complainant or in the name of the previous owner and so the surveyor submitted his report stating that the claim is liable to be rejected even though he has assessed  the extent of loss  to a sum of Rs.41,049/-  and hence the opp.party thereafter repudiated  the claim of the complainant.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether  the vehicle is having a valid policy with the opp.party  as on the date of accident or not?

2.     Reliefs and cost?

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts. P1 to P5

For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked Exts. D1 to D9

The points:

In this case complainant was examined as PW.1  Ext.P1 is the photocopy of the    claim   repudiation letter, Ext. P2   is the photocopy of the policy  in the name of George.V. Zakariya  for  a period from  29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009, Ext. P3   is the photocopy of the  Transfer endorsement policy certificate  in the name of Mr. Sajeev commencing from 29.8.2008  to 28.8.2009, Ext.p4 series  is the photocopy of  bills, Ext. P5 is the photocopy of RC book.   The Assistant Manager of opp.party,  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd was examined as DW.1, Ext. D1 is the claim intimation letter , Ext. D2  is the claim form, Ext. D3 is the  proposal form, Ext. D4 is the  Insurance policy in the name of George.V. Zakariya  commencing from  29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009,  Ext. D5 is the  proposal form  transfer endorsement, Ext. D6 is policy issued in favour of the complainant with endorsement of transfer  with effect from 4.9.2008, Ext. D7 is  receipt given for collection of fee for transfer endorsement, Ext. D8  is survey report, Ext. D9 is the claim repudiation letter. Ext. P2  [Ext. D4]  insurance policy  clearly shows that  the above policy  is issued  in favour of one Mr. George.V. Zakariya with effect from 29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009.  The Asst. Manager  of the opp.party insurance company as DW.1   clearly stated before the forum that the above policy was issued by the opp.party  on the basis of a proposal form and  the previously expired policy  produced before the opp.party  at the time of renewal of the policy.   Admittedly the previous policy was expired  28 days  prior to the renewal of the policy .  According to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant  the vehicle was produced for physical verification of the opp.party  on the date of presentation of the proposal form.  But it is categorically denied by the opp.party .   Apart from the bald allegations in the complaint there is no evidence to show that  the vehicle was produced on 28.8.2008 for physical verification of the opp.party .   Ext. D3 proposal form is  also seen  submitted  in the name of George.V.  Zakariya  who was the previous policy holder  and  in Ext. D3  insurance  is required for the period from 29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009.  Complainant as PW.1  would swear before the forum that   policy ]pXp-¡n-In-«p-¶-Xn-\p-ff  proposal form  Rm³ Xs¶-bmWv \ÂIn-b-Xpv .  t\c-t¯bp-ff Imem-h-[n-I-gnªv 28 Znh-k-¯n-\-ptij-am-Wpvapplication  \ÂIn-b-Xpv   Further down he would swear before the forum that CXm-Wpv  Rm³ \ÂInb proposal form CXn proposer  Bbn ImWn-¨n-cn-¡p-¶Xv ]gb  owner George.V.Zakariya BWv.  28.8..2008  BWv;  proposal  ev \ÂIn-b-Xpv policy th­ Imem-h[n proposal form   ]d-ªn-«p-­pv 

 It follows that the opp.party  correctly issued the renewal policy in the name of the previous policy holder  for a period commencing from  29.8.2008 to 28.8.2009 believing that  the proposal form is submitted by George.V. Zakariya himself.     As per Ext. D1  the claim reported by the complainant  almost after 26 days  after obtaining the policy  stating that the vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2008 .  At this juncture it is to be noted that  Ext. D4 policy is commencing  only with effect from 29.8.2008 and that too  in the name of George.V. Zakariya and not in favour of the complainant .  So it is clearly evident that there is no insurance coverage for the vehicle  when it met with an accident on 28.8.2008  and the complainant in this case is totally a stranger  in the renewal policy  obtained from the opp.party with effect from 28.8.2008.

It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opp.party  that the complainant  deliberately  suppressed the involvement of the vehicle in the accident on 28.8.2008  itself and had approached the opp.party  for transferring the insurance policy  in his name  by submitting a new proposal form  with a request  to transfer the policy in his name with Ext. D5 proposal form on 4.9.2008  and produced the RC book of the vehicle showing the change of ownership of the vehicle in his name  and also remitted  required fee for transferring the policy in his name .  The opp.party thereafter issued Ext. D6 policy in favour of the complainant with transfer endorsement commencing from 4.9.2008 .  In Ext. D6 it is clearly noted that the endorsement in the name of the complainant is effective from 4.9.2008  to 28.8.2009 .  It follows that the complainant is totally a stranger to the opp.party  and not a consumer of the opp.party till 4.9.2008.  In Ext. D4 and D6  the commencement date of the policy  is mentioned as 29.8.2008 .    The above aspect has clearly admitted by the complainant in his cross examination.  He would swear before the forum that George.V. Zakariya  bpsS  t]cn BZy  policy ]pXp¡n \ÂIp-t¼mtgm \n§fpsS t]cn   transfer sNbvXphm§p-t¼mtgm  policy hy-h-Ø-IÄ  kw_-Ôn¨ Hcp XÀ¡hpw \n§Ä D¶-bn-¨n-«n-ÃtÃm? A CÃ.  Cu c­p t]mfn-kn-I-fnepw Imem-h[n XpS-§p-¶Xv 29/8/2008 BsW¶v hy-à-ambn  ]d-ªn-«n-­pv

 Ext. D1 would clearly show that  the vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2008 itself  and Ext. D4 and D6 would clearly show that  the date of commencement of the policy is 29.8.2008.     It is also pertinent to note that complainant has not disclosed  the fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 28.8.2008  either at the time of renewing the policy in the name of George.V. Zakariya or at the time of submitting a new proposal form on 4.9.2008 for changing the insurance policy in his name  The complainant   changed the insurance policy in his name  with effect from 4.9.2008 and thereafter reported the claim before the opp.party only on 24.9.2008.  Following the above discussion  we have no hesitation to safely conclude that  the vehicle  was having no valid policy with the opp.party as on the date of accident  and the opp.party rightly repudiated the claim

     In the result, the complaint is dismissed  but without cost.

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2012.

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sajeev

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Claim repudiation letter

P2. – Photocopy of policy

P3. –Copy of Transfer endorsement of Policy certificate

P4. – Photocopy of bills

P5. – photocopy of RC Book

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – P.P. Krishna Moorthy

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Claim intimation letter

D2. – Claim form

D3. – Proposal form

D4. -  Insurance policy

D5. – Proposal forum

D6. – Policy  issued in favour of the complainant with endorsement of transfer

D7. – Receipt given for collection of fee for transferring endorsement

D8. – Survey report

D9.- Claim repudiation letter