By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The petition filed on 23-8-04.  The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of the Mahindra Jeep bearing No. KL-11-H-4183 and the vehicle was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd.  On 5-9-2001 the vehicle was stolen from the premises of one Mr. Kabeer, a friend of the complainant.  The vehicle was stolen within the limit of Kondotty Police Station and a complaint was lodged and Kondotty Police registered a Crime No.564/2001 but the vehicle was not seized.  The complainant approached the opposite party but they repudiated the claim.  Therefore the complainant approached this Forum to get Rs.3,44,000/- as the amount for which vehicle was insured and compensation and cost of the petition.

            After receiving the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed their version, stating that the above complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts.  It is admitted that the Jeep Bearing No. KL-11-H-4183 was insured with this opposite party.  In the policy as well as in Motor Claim form submitted by the complainant on 31-12-2002 the name of the insured is shown as Mr. P. Kader residing at Pottammal House, Kunnamangalam.  The above said vehicle was stolen from the premises of the house of one Mr. Mohammed, Thaliyil House, Thavannur, Malappuram who was plying it as taxi.  The contention in the complaint regarding the ownership of the vehicle is not true or correct.  At the time of theft of the vehicle, the vehicle was owned and possessed by one Thaliyil Kabeer, Thavannur who had filed complaint with Kondotty Police and the Police registered a Crime No.564/01 dated 6-9-01.  The Police has recorded the statement of Kabeer picturing himself as the owner of the vehicle.  Investigation was conducted by the investigator appointed by the opposite party and according to the investigation report also, it is revealed that the vehicle was sold and handed over by Mr. P. Kader to Mr. Kabeer in January 1999.  Hence it is evident that at the time of theft, the vehicle was insured  in the name of P. Kader, he was not  the owner in person or possession of the vehicle.  The transfer of vehicle was not intimated to the insurer.  As the vehicle was sold by the insured he had lost his insurable interest on the vehicle from January 1999 itself.  The transfer of the vehicle is to be intimated to the insurer and the policy has to be transferred in the name of the transferee within stipulated time that was not done in this case.  Hence the claimant Mr. Kader is not entitled to claim compensation against the opposite party for the theft of the vehicle which has happened on 5-9-01.  The opposite party has no privity of contract with Mr. Kader who was the owner of the Jeep No. KL-11-H-4183 at the time of theft. Under these circumstances complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            Points for consideration is (1)  Whether the complaint is maintainable?  (2)  Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10 were marked.  Opposite party-1 examined as RW1. Investigator examined as RW2, Investigating Officer examined as RW3. Further Investigating Officer examined as RW4.  Ext.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite party.

            Regarding Ext.A1, theft is admitted by the opposite party also. No dispute, but the ownership is disputed.  As per ext.B1 document, the claim form signed by somebody else, the signature of the Ext.B1 document not tallied with the signature put in the Vakalath and deposition of the PW1, it shows complainant acted for somebody else.  Another crucial thing is PW1 while questioned by Investigating Officer  deposed that on January 1999 itself vehicle was transferred to Mr. Kabeer for Rs.3,60,000/- on condition that, purchaser shall repay the loan amount dues in S.B.T. Kallai Branch, Registration Certificate, Insurance which were in the name of complainant were handed over to Mr. Kabeer at the time of possession of the vehicle.  This version given to the Investigating Officer was duly signed.  It is the duty of the complainant to get R.C., I.C endorsed in the name of complainant.  That was not done in this case.  Version before Investigating Officer made by the complainant marked as Ext.B3.  Complainant has a statutory obligation to transfer the vehicle and Insurance Certificate in his own name.  Since the vehicle was not transferred in the name of complainant, there is no contractual relation between the Opposite party and the complainant.  The decision reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC page 586 it was held that in the realm of contract in which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage of the vehicle.  Since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto the transferee.  The insurer was not liable to make good the damages to the vehicle.  According to B3 Kader received the entire amount from Kabeer towards the vehicle. So complainant is not entitled to get double benefit of the same transaction. It is the duty of the Kabeer to change the R.C. and Insurance in the name of Kabeer, after sale of the vehicle complainant has no locus -standi to file this complaint.  Complainant should have insisted for transferring the policy along with R.C. prior to the renewal of policy on 12-11-2000 to 11-11-2001, that was not done by the complainant.  It is a clear negligence on the part of complainant.

            Under these circumstances complainant has failed to prove the ownership of the vehicle. Since the ownership not proved, complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party.  Therefore we are of the opinion that complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 18th  day of June 2010.

Date of filing :  23-8-2004.

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.  Photocopy of F.I.R. dt. 6-9-2001.

A2.  Photocopy of letter dt. 3-6-2004.

A3.  Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 9-7-2004.

A4.  Photocopy of Invoice dt. 31-10-1998.

A5.  Photocopy of receipt dt. 2-11-1998.

A6.  Photocopy of reply notice dt. 27-7-2004.

A7.  Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

A8.  Registration particulars in respect of KL-11.H.4183.

A9.  Order No. WP(C ) 18162 of 2005 (K ) of High Court.

A10. Memo dt. 10-5-06 sent by R.T.O., Koduvally to the complainant.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1.  Motor Claim Form.

B2.  investigation Report.

B3.  Signed statement of insured.

B4.  Valuation certificate.

B5.  F.I. statement of Kabeer.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.  P. Khader (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1.  Mrs. Lavanya.M.R., Asst. Manager,New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

RW2.  Haridasan Nair, Haritham, P.O. Karaparamba, Florical Road, Kozhikode-10.

RW3.  Abdul Hameed.K.K., D.Y.S.P., VACB, Wayanad.

RW4.  A.J. Babu, C.I. of Police, Kozhikode Town.

                                                                                    Sd/- President

                                    // True copy //

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.