5.11.2008<br /> Sri.K.Gopalan, President<br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2, 30,000/- with compensation and cost of these proceedings.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle K/13-J-1498 stage carriage plying on its route Iritty<br /> Aralam Taliparamba.Vehicle was duly insured with 1st opposite party. It was valid up to 14.9.05 for an insured sum of Rs.2, 30,000/-.<br /> The vehicle was missing in between 6.2.05 at about 20.15 hours and 7.2.05, 7.30 A.M. The missing was reported to 1st opposite pary, Station House Officer, Kannur Town and crime was registered on 7.2.05 vide Cr.No.85/05. Under section379 IPC. Town Police investigated the matter but the vehicle was not found. Hence the crime was reported as undetected and closed. The matter reported to J.F.C.M, Kannur by 2nd opposite party and further reported to 3rd opposite party and 1st opposite party on 28.2.2005.<br /> The possession of the vehicle was temporarily handed over to one Sunil Kumar without being transferred the ownership.<br /> The complainant submitted the claim form on 13.9.05 before the policy expires on 14.9.05. On 9.12.2005 1st opposite party repudiated the claim on the grounds (1) the missing was not reported in time (2) loss is out of the preview of the policy (3) the vehicle is sold to K.P.Sunil. Complainant says that the missing was reported on 28.2.2005. The missing was reported on the same day to 2nd opposite party and crime was registered. So also the sale was not affected nor was the consideration passed to complainant. Complainant remains to be the R.C owner of the vehicle and hence the insurable interest also existing under the policy. The claims repudiated saying that the policy has become void. Policy never became void. Repudiation is against terms of policy and law. It is a willful act of 1st opposite party that amounts to deficiency in service. The 3rd opposite party sent a memo to complainant stating that an amount of Rs.49, 910/- + AT due to the said vehicle from 1.10.2004 to 28.2.2005. The amount is still due pending against the said vehicle.<br /> Complainant submits that the 1st opposite party issued renewal notice to the complainant on 17.8.2005 in spite of knowing the theft of the vehicle. He prays for an order to direct the 1st opposite party to settle the claim and to pay the insured sum of Rs.2, 30,000/- with compensation and cost.<br /> Forum sent notice to opposite parties. 1st opposite party appeared and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties not even filed version. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties declared exparte.<br /> 1st opposite party filed version denying the allegations and averments of the complainant. The contentions of the 1st opposite party in brief are as follows: The complainant has no connection with the vehicle. It was sold to another person long before the alleged theft. 1st opposite party insurance company admits that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party. But contents that the vehicle was sold to one P.K.Sunil. In fact the complainant had no insurance in respect of the vehicle during the relevant periods. It is the transferee P.K.Sunil who gave first information statement before Kannur town Police. In fact the vehicle was being owned and possessed by P.K.Sunil. It is false to say that the intimation of theft was given to 1st opposite party on 28.2.05. Complainant himself was not aware of such incident till the notice of recovery authority. The insured is under legal obligation to intimate the theft if any of the vehicle. The intimation, in fact, was given only on 12.9.2005. The rejection of claim is on the basis of policy condition. The complaint is a product of collusion between the complainant and the transferee P.K.Sunil. As such opposite party is entitled for the cost of these proceedings. <br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have taken for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question having insurable interest under the policy?<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 4. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consist of oral evidence of complainant as PW1, 1st opposite party as DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1, B2 (B2 subject to proof) marked on the side of opposite party and Ext.X1.<br /> Issue Nos.1 to 4<br /> The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle KL.<br /> 13/J-1498 and his vehicle were subject to theft in between 6.2.05 and 7.2.05. The 1st opposite party insurance company contents that the complainant has no connection with the vehicle. Opposite party further contended that the vehicle was sold to one Mr.P.K.Sunil long b before the alleged theft. It is complainant’s specific case that the vehicle is duly insured with the 1st opposite party Insurance Company. The policy number is 3341/2005 and it is valid from 15.9/2004 to 14.9.2005. The 1st opposite party insurance company admits that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party. But opposite party contents that the complainant had no insurance in respect of vehicle during the relevant period. Ext.A9 is the true copy of R.C particulars issued to Sri.K.P.Vinayan by additional Registering Authority, Kannur. This true extract copy of R.C particulars shows the Registration Number is 13/J.1498. It also shows that the NOC issued to RTO, Kannur by RTO D.K Mangalore dt.31.10.2002. It is then recorded thus: “Transferred to Sri.K.P.Vinayan, S/o. Gopalan Kunhiparambath Orayil, Valiyannur, Varam, Kannur w.e.f 1.11.2002 and assigned K-13/J 1498 on 10.12.2002” Ext.X1 case diary page No.124 list of property sent to magistrate in crime No.85/05 in the column list of property seized or found the first item recorded thus: <br /> KL.13J1498<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The item No.2 in the list of property seized is recorded thus: The oriental insurance company Ltd. certificate-cum-policy schedule <br /> <br /> <br /> 15.9.04 to14.9.05<br /> <br /> Ext.A3 last page shows the details of renewal certificate of fitness. Ext.A7 is the renewal certificate issued by1st opposite party insurance company to the complainant on 17.8.2005. It shows clearly that the date of expiry is 14.9.2005. The alleged theft was taken place in between 6.2.2005 and 7.2.2005.Ext.A4 dt.28.2.05 informed 1st and 3rd opposite party about missing of vehicle. It is difficult to understand why insurance company sent the renewal notice to complainant if he has no relation with the vehicle KL.13/J-1498. In fact sending of Ext.A7 to complainant amounts to admission that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question up to that particular date as far as the 1st opposite party is concerned. The plea of the insurer is that on the date of alleged theft, complainant was not the owner of the vehicle and had sold it to one Sunil. Theft was in the month of February and renewal notice Ext.A7 was sent much later in the month of August. It was however, not challenged by opposite party that the registration certificate stands in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 and Ext. A9 makes it clear that the registration certificate is standing in the name of the complainant. Ext.A6 memo issued to complainant by Regional Transport Officer on 17.8.2005 specifically stated that it is seen from their office records that an amount of Rs.49910/- + AT is due towards tax in respect of vehicle No.KL.13/J.1498 for the various periods from 1.10.2004 to 28.2.2005. The owner of the vehicle k.P.Vinayan is thereby directed to pay the dues up-to-date. The concerned Regional Transport officer says that Mr.K.P.Vinayan is the owner of the vehicle during the relevant period. What else is required to prove that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle? Complainant is the owner of the vehicle.<br /> The 1st opposite party issued Ext.A2 receipt No.10/226928 in the name of K.P.Vinayan on 14.9.04 for Rs.16301/- in the policy No.2005/3341.Ext.A7 renewal notice specifically shows the date of expiry of the vehicle KL13/J1498 is 14.9.05. The sum assured shown in Ext.A7 is Rs.2, 30,000/-. The Ext.A2 and A7 undoubtedly prove that the vehicle in question was insured on 14.9.04 and renewal notice issued in the name of K.P.Vinayan on 17.8.05. It reveals that insurance company recognize Mr.K.P.Vinayan as owner of the vehicle in question during the relevant period and the validity of insurance has been continued to be in inexistence up to 14.9.05. Thus the contention raised by the 1st opposite party that there is no insurance during the relevant period is rootless and not sustainable.<br /> Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs.Dharam Pai reported in I (2007) CPJ 150 made it clear that “theft of vehicle claims to be settled as per policy. Even assuming that complainant sold vehicle, till the registration certificate is not transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser, if any, and then so far as the insurance company is concerned, for then the original owner would remain the owner as well as the insured”. Herein the registered owner has filed the claims and hence the complainant is entitled for the claim. In the decision reported in me (2008) CPJ 19 also makes it clear that owner means a person whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. It is very important to note the observation made in Harjit Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in I (2007) CPJ 349. National Commission observed that the only person who has the locus standi was the original owner in whose name the insurance stood.<br /> Herein, this present case even after the alleged sale, the Registration certificate continued to be in the name of the complainant and so the insurance. Under such circumstances we hold that the repudiation of claim is a deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company. Complainant is entitled for the claim amount Rs.2, 30,000/- with interest @ 8% from the date of filing of the complaint ie.9.1.2006 till realization. The complainant is also entitled for cost of these proceedings Rs.1000/-. Thus the issues 1 to 4 arte found in favour of the complainant. <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.2, 30,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs and thirty thousand only) with interest @8% from 9.1.2006 the date of filing of the complaint till realisation of the amount together with Rs.1000/- Rupees One thousand only) as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the 1stopposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.True copy of the FIR dt.7.2.05<br /> A2.Policy receipt issued by OP dt.14.9.04<br /> A3.Copy of the registration certificate issued by OP dt.10.12.2002<br /> A4. Copy of the letter dt.28.2.05<br /> A5.Copy of the claim form submitted to 1st OP: dt.13.9.05<br /> A6.Copy of the memo issued by OP dt.17.8.05.<br /> A7.Copy of renewal notice issued by OP 1 dt.17.8.2005<br /> A8.copy of the letter issued by Opdt.9.12.05.<br /> A9. True Extract copy of RC particulars<br /> A10.Memo dt.9.3.07 issued by RTO, Tvm.<br /> A11.Copy of the letter dt.4.4.07 sent to OP3.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the opposite parties<br /> B1.Copy of the FIR<br /> B2.Copy of the letter dt.18.10.05 sent by complainant<br /> Exhibits for the witness<br /> <br /> X1.Case diary of Kannur Town Police station.<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Vinayan<br /> Witness examined for the opposite parties<br /> DW1.G.Udayan /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br /> <br /> Despatched on<br /> Through<br /> <br />