By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the accident claim amount, cost and compensation.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant No.1 was the Registered Owner of KL 13 J 8949 Lorry with engine No.30162773396, 2003 model with effect from 26.06.2009. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with the Opposite party vide policy No.3379/00358377/000/05 for the period 25.06.2014 up to the midnight on 24.06.2015. The complainant No.2 purchased the KL 13 J 8949 Lorry from the complainant No.1 and after complying all the formalities the registration of the vehicle was transferred in favor of the 2^nd complainant with effect from 22.06.2015 at the office of the Additional registering officer Mananthavadv. It is submitted that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident at Kuttuli, within Areacode police station limit on 23.06.2015 and Areacode crime 599/2015 was booked against the driver of the vehicle u/s 279, 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code. Though the ownership of the vehicle involved in the matter transferred in favour of the 2^nd complainant with effect from 22.06.2015, the policy of the vehicle from the opposite continued in the name of the 1^st complainant. The accident was duly reported to the opposite party and the authorized Surveyor of the opposite party also completed the formalities and the vehicle was repaired and all the original bills along with the claim for Rs.1,31,093/- were submitted to the opposite party by 12.08.2015. The opposite party without even considering the basic concepts of vehicle insurance, repudiated the complainant's claim No.3379144570 vide its repudiation letter 28.10.2015. The action of the opposite party in repudiating the claim is totally against the accepted principles of customer jurisprudence and natural justice. The fallacy or hollowness of the repudiation is clear from the plain reading of section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act. From the conduct of the opposite party it appears that the actions are only mechanic and without even applying commonsense. This is nothing but sheer negligence and deficiency of service. The deficiency of service of the opposite party in the case is reached its zenith. Thus the intention of the opposite parties is against the spirit of consumer jurisprudence. The progress of the things and incidents in the case will speak itself the sheer negligence of the opposite party in handling with the genuine claims. The complainant is aggrieved by the acts, inaction, deficiency of service, sheer negligence etc.., from the side of opposite party in processing the complainant's claim. The loss, inconveniences, and sufferings to the complainants could not actually be assessed in terms of money and it is practically incalculable. However for the sake of the adjudication of the present complaint the complainant limits his claim for the loss and inconveniences suffered by him to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with the cost of the proceedings. Besides this the opposite parties are also liable to make good the claim amount of Rs.1,31,093/-along with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a, with effect from 12.08.2015. The cause of action arose on 21.06.2015 when the vehicle met with an accident and on 10.08.2015 when the vehicle was repaired and 12.08.2015 when the claim was forwarded along with original bills and on 28.10.2015 when the opposite party issued the repudiation letter, without any basis and thereafter at Wayanad, wherein the vehicle was insured, registered, the policy was served through the opposite party at Kalpetta, all within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence filed this complaint.

3. Notice were served to opposite party and opposite party filed version stating that It is true that the vehicle Lorry KL 13 J 8949 was insured with my company for a period from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015 vide policy No.3379/00358377/000/05. It is admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 23.06.2015. It is true that a surveyor was deputed to assess the loss and a report has been received from the surveyor. It is true that the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred from first petitioner to second petitioner. It is also admitted that the policy of the vehicle continued in the name of the first petitioner at the time of accident. Since the policy was in the name of the first petitioner and since the RC was in the name of the second petitioner, the second petitioner has no insurable interest in the claim and hence my company repudiated the claim. As per the survey report the loss assessed is to the tune of Rs.61,576/-. It is understood that second respondent has taken a policy from M/s. New India Assurance Company before the accident. As such this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This complaint has to be dismissed since the other insurance company has not been made a party to this petition. The further allegation that by repudiating the claim there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of my company is denied by me. The allegation that the complainant is entitled to for Rs.50,000/- towards the loss and inconvenience is denied by me. The complainant is not entitled to for Rs.1,31,093/- on account of damages since this is a vague claim made without any basis. The complainant is not entitled to Rs.10,000/- as the cost of lawyer notice and other costs. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to this opposite party.

4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked. Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but Ext.B1 to B3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney given by the 1^st complainant to the 2^nd complainant. Ext.A2 is the policy certificate issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant for the disputed vehicle for the period of 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015. Ext.A3 is the copy of Registration Certificate in the name of 2^nd complainant. Ext.A4 is the Repudiation letter issued by the opposite party dated 28.10.2015 stating that “this has reference to the claim documents submitted by you in support of the captioned claim. On a careful perusal of the claim documents and after independent inquiry, it is inferred that the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Abdul Saleem, before date of loss. In view of these established facts. It is concluded that you are not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the material time of accident. We, therefore regret our inability to consider your claim”. Ext.A5 is the FIR dated 23.06.2015 for the vehicle KL 13 J 8949. Ext.B1 is the Motor Final Survey Report commercial issued by the Surveyor appointed by the opposite party. Where the Surveyor assessed the damage after depreciation for Rs.61,576.17/-. Ext.B2 is the Repudiation letter issued by the opposite party (same as Ext.A4). Ext.B3 is the Motor policy certificate issued by the opposite party for the disputed vehicle for the period from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015.

5. On considering the complaint, version, documents and evidences, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the

part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

6. Point No.1:- On considering the complaint, version and documents it is proved the accident and policy and the policy is admitted by the opposite party in their version and produced documents. Opposite party denied the claim stating that at the time of accident the RC is transferred to the 2^nd complainant that is the only reason the opposite party has denied the claim. Motor Vehicles Act 157(1) says where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter transferred to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the Motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 157(2) the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary change in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of the insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. This case the ownership of RC is transferred only on 22.06.2015 and the accident took place on 23.06.2015. So the accident is occurred within the statutory period. Hence we found that denial of insurance claim at this juncture is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party, opposite party is liable to pay the accident claim according to law and also liable to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same. Hence the Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.61,576.17/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred and seventy six and seventy paise) which is assessed by the valuer with 12% interest from 12.08.2015 and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainants are entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount till realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21^st day of November 2016.

Date of Filing:13.04.2016.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Abdul Saleem. T. K. Driver.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Power of Attorney.

A2. Copy of Policy schedule cum certificate of Insurance.

A3. Copy of Registration Certificate.

A4. Copy of Repudiation Letter. Dt:28.10.2015.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Motor Final Survey Report - Commercial.

B2. Copy of Repudiation Letter. Dt:28.10.2015.

B3. Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy Certificate.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-