<br /> <br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-2-J-2002 Ford Ikon car. The complainant has insured the car with the opp.parties as per policy bearing No.570500/31/02/6120906 which expires on 31.1.2004. The said car while parking at a place near to Polayathode Kavalpura Junction at about 11.5.2003 the another vehicle hit at the left side of the car got damages. The vehicle hit the complainant’s car is not identified by the complainant. The complainant informed of the accident to the Traffic Police Station, Kollam and the opp.party. He has also spend Rs.45020/- for repairing the damaged vehicle. The ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the complainant from his son Zeus Salim on 6.3.2003 and the policy was transferred in the name of the complainant on 26.5.2003. The complainant had presented a claim above sum to the opp.party but the claim repudiated by the opp.party. On the ground that there was no policy in the name of the complainant on the date of accident. The ownership of the vehicle has been transferred in the name of the complainant but the insurance policy was not transfer at the time of accident. Though the policy of the vehicle is not transferred to the complainant even after transferring the ownership of the vehicle it is presumed and settled by law that it is in the process of transferring the policy in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle which means that it is in the transmission stage. The contention of the opp.party is baseless, unreasonable and unsustainable. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party has filed written version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts . The definition complaint , complainant consumer dispute service as defined in section 2 [1] of the Consumer Protection Act do not cover the claim made out in the complaint. This opp.party has issued a comprehensive insurance policy to one Mr. Zens Salim for his vehicle registration No.KL-2/J-2002 for the period from 1.2.2003 to 31.1.2004. The complainant on 20.5.2003had reported that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 11.5.2003 and requested own damaged claim for the same. On receipt of the report the opp.party issued a claim form to the complainant for resubmit the same duly filed and signed along with the estimate for the report. The opp.party had deputed an insurance surveyor and loss assessor also to assessed the damages the surveyor inspecting the vehicle and notice that the complainant was not the insured of the vehicle at the time of accident. Though the ownership of the vehicle was transfer in his name as early on 15.11.2002. The surveyor further found that the causes of accident stated and also mentioned in his report that the insured is deliberately hiding the real facts. Anyhow the surveyor has assessed the accident of loss to a sum of Rs.24647/- and salvage value to a sum of Rs.750/-. The complainant purchased the vehicle in his name on 15.11.2002 he suppressed the transfer of ownership of the vehicle from this opp.party and renewed the insurance policy in the name of the previous owner with effect from 1.2.2003. The complainant suppression was deliberately made with a view to the availing loss claim benefits of the policy liable to the previous owner. The complainant has transferred the policy in his name only with effect from 26.5.2003. The opp.party is totally unaware of the fact that the ownership of the vehicle in question had already been transferred in the name of the complainant at the time of issuance of the renewal policy. The transferee owner is legally bound to transfer the insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership in his name under section 157 [2] of the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no privity between the complainant and this opp.party on the date of the alleged incident for claiming indemnity under the contract of insurance. The transfer insurance policy in his favour there was no contract of insurance in between the complainant and this opp.party covering the risk of the own damages of the vehicle as on the alleged date of incident. The complainant is totally a stranger to this opp.party who was having no personal contract of insurance with this opp.party as on the date of accident. So as to claim indemnity for the personal loss sustained to him. The own damage rish of the vehicle granted under the insurance policy he strictly a personal contract of insurance unless insurance policy is transfer in the name of the complainant . It cannot be said that the complainant has hired any service from this opp.party for claiming indemnity for the personal loss sustained to him. The decision of the opp.party to repudiate the claim on sound legal basis and statutory provisions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The complainant has no cause of action against the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [I] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Point<br /> <br /> The vehicle involved in this case viz. KL.2-J 2002 originally belonged to one Zeus Salim from whom the complainant purchased the same. Ext.P10 shows that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complaint with effect from 15.11.2002. While so on 11.5.2003 the vehicle met with an accident and the complaint preferred a claim to the opp.party who rejected the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest as the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant within 14 days as aid down in Section 157 [2] of the Motor Vehicle Act 1985. Admittedly the policy was transferred in the name of the complainant on 26.5.2003 see cross examination of PW.1.<br /> <br /> Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The contention of the opp.party is that since there was no insurance policy in the name of the complainant on the date of accident he is not entitled to get own damage coverage of the vehicle unless the policy which is in the name of the previous owner. It is argued that the complainant is a stranger to the insurance contract in respect of own damage coverage granted under the policy and therefore the claim was repudiated.<br /> <br /> Section 157 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 – Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers 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.<br /> <br /> The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.” The learned counsel for the opp.party would argue that the transferee is not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer, since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee. And in support of his contention he has relied on the decision of the Apex court reported in 1996 ACG 65 here in the apex court held that it is only in respect of third party risks that section 157 1st proviso of the New Ac, that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicles is transferred. If the policy of of insurance covering other risks as well ie the damage caused to the insured vehicle itself that would be a matter falling outside chapter XI of the New Motor Vehicle Act. In the realm on contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the insurer undertaking to cover the risk of damage to the vehicle.<br /> <br /> It has been further held therein that section 157 appears in chapter XI entitled to insurance of Motor vehicle against 3rd part risks and comprises section 145 to 164. Thus the entire chapter XI of the New Act concerns third party risk only. It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third party risks since section 146 prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of chapter XI. Thus the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. As argued that the learned counsel for the opp.party the complainant herein is a total stranger to the insurance contract towards on damage coverage granted under the policy and the policy stand in the name of previous owner on the date of accident. Therefore he would argued that the repudiation of the claim is in accordance with the statutory provisions.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the complainant argued that section 1257 [1] of the Motor Vehicle Act there is the deemed provisions under the 157 [1] Motor Vehicle Act by which 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 transfe. That argued cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court referred to above . The learned counsel for the complainant argued relying on the decision of the Appex Court Reporter in AIR 1999 SE 398 that the non transfer the policy in the name of transferee of the vehicle is not a ground to deny compensation by the insurer to vicitim or LRs of vicitim. But that in the decision itself it has been qualified that the 3rd party here will not include a transferee whose transferor has not followed procedure for transfer of policy. The National Commission has held in the decision III [2007] CPJ 411 that claim of insurance is not allowable in a case no steps not taken for transferring policy after the transfer of vehicle relying on the decision of the apex court referred to. In this case it is admitted fact that the complainant is not transfer the insurance policy in his name on the date of accident. And therefore there is no agreements between the complainant and the opp.party. The insurer was not liable to make good the damaged to the vehicle. And therefore the repudiation of the claim in review to his proper . Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same here by dismissed with the cost of the opp.party Rs.2,000/-. The order is to b e complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008.<br /> <br />