By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-11 P 3251. He purchased this vehicle from one Raghu, Tamarassery. The transfer of ownership was effected in Registration Certificate on 13-5-2003. The vehicle was insured with opposite party for the period 04-4-2003 till 03-4-2003 and the policy was in the name of Raghu. Complainant transferred the policy into his name on 22-7-2003. While so, on 24-7-2003 the vehicle was involved in an accident and capsized at Cherani near Manjeri while coming from Karnataka. The vehicle sustained heavy damage. The accident was reported to the Manjeri Police and necessary G.D entries were made on 24-7-2003 in Manjeri Police station. On intimation of accident to opposite party a Surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle. That complainant incurred loss of Rs.74,000/-. Opposite party repudiated the claim of complainant on 04-2-2004 stating unsustainable grounds. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction against opposite party to indemnify the loss and damages.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting that a policy was issued in regard to the said vehicle in the name of one Mr. Raghu, Tamarassery covering a period from 04-4-2003 to 03-4-2004. That though the transfer of ownership of the vehicle was effected in the R.C. Book on 13-5-2003 the insurance policy continued to be in the name of Raghu. That as per rules and regulations for a valid and effective insurance coverage the transferee has to apply for the transfer of policy to his name within 14 days of transfer and has to obtain fresh insurance certificate. That the complainant did not apply for transfer within 14 days and, that such transfer application was presented only on 22-7-2003. Opposite party admits issuing fresh policy in the name of complainant on 22-7-2003. That the contractual liability covers only after 22-7-2003 and does not cover any earlier risk. Opposite party denies the time, date and version of accident stated in the complaint. It is submitted that the accident did not occur at Cherani, Manjeri on 24-7-2003. That to the knowledge of opposite party the vehicle was involved in an accident on 18-7-2003 at K.R. Pet a place about 75 kms away from Hassan. That complainant somehow managed to bring the vehicle to Manjeri and got an First Information Report lodged before Manjeri Police by fraud and misrepresentation. That opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B5 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

Opposite party has repudiated the policy on the following two grounds:-

(i) That the complainant did not apply for transfer of policy within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle.

(ii) That the accident did not happen at Cherani, Manjeri on 24-7-2003 but that it happened on 18-7-2003 at K.R. Pet, Karnataka and that on such date the policy stood in the name of the previous owner Raghu and therefore on 18-7-2003 opposite party has no contractual liability with complainant to indemnify him.

6. It is true that complainant has applied for transfer of policy only on 22-7-2003. Admittedly opposite party has issued fresh insurance certificate in the name of complainant on 22-7-2003. The contention raised is that the accident occurred on 18-7-2003, which is a date prior to the transfer of policy and that for this reason the claim cannot be honoured. Complainant relied upon Ext.A1 which is a certificate issued by Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeri. It is stated in Ext.A1 that on receiving intimation of accident involving the said vehicle enquiries were made and that it was found to be genuine. It is also certified that necessary G.D. Entries are made on 24-7-2003 in Manjeri Police Station. Ext.A1 sufficiently substantiates the case of complainant regarding date, time and place of accident. Though opposite party contends that the accident occurred on 18-7-2003 at K.R. Pet no reliable evidence is adduced to support this submission. Counsel for opposite party placed thrust on Ext.B4. This document is a record which shows the vehicle trip sheet carrying the goods inter State. Counsel for opposite party submitted that in Ext.B4 there is overwriting in one place and that the date is over written as 23-7-2003. It is true that there is some overwriting in the date seen in Ext.B4 in one place. But in other two places in the same document in the space provided in the impression of seal of check post the date is clear as 23-7-2003. So the single overwriting in Ext.B4 does not find favour with us so as to disregard the consistent case of complainant supported by Ext.A1 document. Opposite party has only tried to pick holes in the evidence adduced by complainant and has not put forward cogent evidence in support of their contention.

7. Moreover, when opposite party has issued fresh policy to the complainant on 22-7-2003 opposite party is estopped from contending that the vehicle met with accident on 18-7-2003, for the simple reason that opposite party has a duty to inspect and verify the vehicle and it's documents before considering the application for transfer and issuance of fresh policy. On issuance of fresh policy by opposite party on 22-7-2003 it has to to be presumed that the condition of the vehicle was fit and was satisfied by opposite party on 22-7-2003. For these reasons we have no hesitation to conclude that the accident occurred on 24-7-2003 as contended by complainant. Then definitely opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant.

8. Before parting with the discussion on this point, we have to say that the repudiation is unsustainable even if we assume that the accident occurred on 18-7-2003. The policy was valid for the period 04-4-2003 till 03-4-2004. The only reason why opposite party clenches to the date of accident as 18-7-2003 is because policy was transferred into the name of complainant only on 22-7-2003. This position is already settled by the Apex Commission in a catena of decisions. In Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company R.P.No.556/2002 decided on 22-5-2007 and Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. 2009 (1) CPR 185 (NC) decided on 03-12-2008 it was held that on transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner.

9. From the above discussions we hold that opposite party has repudiated the claim without cogent evidence to support their ground for repudiation. This definitely is deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service.

10. Point (ii):-

It is submitted by complainant that he spend Rs.74,000/- for repairing the vehicle Ext.A2 series are the bills and quotations produced by complainant. As per Ext.B5 surveyor report the loss assessed is Rs.13,674.80. Complainant has not adduced any evidence contradicting the assessment made by this licensed Surveyor. We therefore hold that complainant is entitled to the amount assessed as per Ext.B5. He is entitled to be compensated for the illegal retainment of legitimate amount. The repudiation was on very flimsy grounds. We consider that interest @ 12% per annum upon the said amount from the date of complaint till payment would be adequate relief to the complainant.

11. In the result we allow this complaint and order opposite party to pay Rs.13,674.80 (Rupees Thirteen thousand six hundred and seventy four and paise eighty only) to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

Dated this 14th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Certificate dated, 24-7-2003 issued by Sub Inspector

of Police, Manjeri to complainant.

Ext.A2(series) : Photo copy of the Bills (8 Nos.)

Ext.A3 : Repudiation letter dated, 04-02-2004 sent by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice issued by complainant's counsel to opposite party.

Ext.A5 : Reply notice issued by opposite party's counsel to complainant's counsel.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B5

Ext.B1 : Policy Schedule given by opposite party in the name of complainant.

Ext.B2 : Proposal for Motor Insurance submitted by complainant to opposite party.

Ext.B3 : Certificate of Insurance given by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B4 : Goods Vehicle record.

Ext.B5 : Survey report dated, 14-8-2003 by Insurance Surveyor.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER