KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO: 697/2009
JUDGMENT DATED:08-03-2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
M.G.Road, Kasaragod,
P.O.Kasaragod,
Kasaragod District.
: APPELLANT
R/by The Deputy Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office No.1,
St. Joseph’s Press Bldg,
Vazhuthacaud, TVPM.
(By Adv. Sri.M.Nizamudeen)
Vs.
K.Abdulla Kunhi, S/o Abdul Rahuman,
Ayisha Manzil, Kanboka Compound,
Near Juhi Palli, Kundroli,
Mangalore Karnataka State,
R/by his Power of Attorney holder- : RESPONDENT
T.M.Abdul Latheef,S/o T.M.Aboobaker Haji,
Thekkepuram House, Keekan P.O,
Pallikkara Village, Hosdurg Taluk.
(By Adv.Sri.Vinodkumar)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.140/08 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant and cost of Rs.2000/- and interest at 9% from the date of complaint.
2. It is the case in the complaint filed through the power of attorney holder that the Maruthi Zen car owned by him and covered with the policy of the opposite party/appellant was stolen in the night of 23/08/2003. A crime was registered on the next day at Bekel Police station. The complainant is employed abroad. The theft was reported by one Muhammed Kunhi (sic Moosa Kunhi) who was in possession of the car. The claim was repudiated. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3.lakhs as compensation.
3. In the version filed, the opposite parties have contended that the theft has occurred after the purchase of the car by one Moideen Kunhi. The policy records were submitted by Moosa Kunhi. The FIR was lodged by Moosa Kunhi and it is stated therein that the car was purchased by Moideen, his elder brother. It is Moosa Kunhi who has made the claim before the opposite party. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has no insurable interest in the car as the vehicle was already sold and hence the complainant has no locus standi.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B15.
5. The Forum has held that as the RC has not been transferred the entire statutory and other obligations with respect to the vehicle are on the part of the RC owner. It is admitted that RC is still in the name of the complainant. The policy is also in the name of the complainant. The opposite party/appellant is relying on the FIS and the claim intimation given by Moosa Kunhi. Of course in Ext.B9, the FIR that contains the FIS also. Moosa Kunhi has stated that his brother Moideen Kunhi had purchased the vehicle about 10 months back. In Ext.B8 statement by the power of attorney holder it is mentioned that the vehicle was stolen within 7 days of sale of the vehicle. As per Sec.50 of the MV Act, the transferor shall within 40 days of the transfer report the fact of the transfer to the registering authority and the failure to do so is punishable. If Ext.B8 is relied the complainant has first got further time to transfer the vehicle. The FIR as well as FIS has not been proved. In view of the fact that, the RC as well as the policy is in the name of the complainant we find that the case of the opposite party that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle cannot be upheld. The finding of the Forum in this regard is sustained.
6. The appellant/opposite party has not assessed the market value of the vehicle. The ID value is Rs.1,80,000/-. The vehicle is of 1999 model. The theft was on 23/8/2003. The opposite party/appellant ought to have assessed the market rate of the vehicle. We find that the theft has occurred after about 5 years of the date of manufacture. It is seen from Ext.A1 copy of the RC that the vehicle is a 2nd hand one. The complainant has not also adduced any evidence as to the purchase price paid by him. In the circumstances we find that it would be reasonable to assess the market value of the vehicle on the date of theft at Rs.1,25,000/-. The Insurers/appellants will be liable to be the above amount. The order with respect to cost is sustained. The complainant will also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint ie, 22/8/2008. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 8/3/2011 the date of this order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.
The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
