BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.230/2008

Between

Complainant : M.G. Rajan

Arackal House,

Vengalloor P.O.

Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Pulimoottil Shopping Arcade,

Thodupuzha P.O.

(By Adv: K. Pradeepkumar)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant who is a retired Government employee, purchased a new Maruthi Alto Car bearing Reg No. KL 38 6986 and the vehicle was duly insured with opposite party for the period from 6/05/2008 to 05/05/2009 as policy No.4135614, the premium of Rs.6,347/- was paid by the complainant. On 28/08/08 at about 6.45 PM the vehicle met with an accident at Vengalloor junction and caused serious damages to the vehicle. The matter was intimated to the opposite party, as per the direction of the opposite party the car was repaired at Indus Motors Muvattupuzha, which is the authorised workshop of opposite party. An estimate of Rs.40,000/- was given from the workshop to the complainant for the repair. A surveyor from the opposite party inspected the vehicle before giving for repair. A claim was forwarded to the opposite party for the cost of the repair of the vehicle, but it was repudiated by the opposite party on 21/10/2008. The vehicle was registered in the name of the daughter of the complainant at the time of purchase. But the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant afterwards. The complainant is incongruous wih the reasons stated in the repudiation letter and hence the petition is filed for getting the Insurance amount of the vehilce.

2. As per written version, the opposite party admitted that the complainant filed a claim for the damages to the vehicle bearing Reg No.KL 38 6986, which sustained in an accident on 28/08/2008. Immediately on receipt of the claim, opposite party deputed an independant surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vahicle. As per survey report the actual loss comes for Rs.24,845/-. While scruitinizing the claim it is found that the policy was issued to "Mrs.Divya Rajan" the registered owner at the time of issuing the policy. The registration of the vehicle was transferred in the name of Mr. M.G.Rajan, present complainant, with effect from 27/05/2008. But the policy was not transferred to Mr.M.G. Rajan within 14 days, as provided under the M.V. Act. In this case the accident occured after 92 days of transfer. As per GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff, package motor policy should be transferred to the new Registered owner of the vehicle within 14 days of the transfer in the R.C. book. In this case this opposite party has no insurance contract with the complainant for indedemnifying any damages. Considering the above legal position this opposite party was constrained to repudiate the claim.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.The POINT:- Complainant's Maruthi car caused damges due to an accident, the insurance company repudiated the claim because the insurance policy was not trasferred in the name of the registered owner at the time of accident . Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the policy No.4135614 was issued by the opposite party for the period from 6.05.2008 to 5.05.2009 after receiving a premium of Rs.6,347/- from the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the policy. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.08.2008 at 6.45 P.M at Vengalloor Junction. The matter was intimated to the opposite party and a surveyer of the opposite party inspected the place. The vehicle was repaired in the authorised workshop named Indus Motors, Muvattupuzha. The bill for the same is marked as Ext.P4, which is for Rs.27,484/-. The claim form given to the company was rejected. Ext.P3 is the repudiation letter. The vehicle was purchased in the name of the daughter of the complainant who is residing with the complainant and the policy was also taken in the name of daughter of the complainant. But the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant, the matter was intimated to the opposite party within 14 days through Indus Motors, who arranged the policy. The opposite party filed written version. As per the written version, the policy and the accident were admitted. But the surveyer who inspected the place has filed a survey report, in which the loss assessed, the amount for repairing the vehicle is calculated as Rs.24,845.39/- which is Ext.R1. The opposite party repudiated the claim because the policy was issued to Miss.Divya Rajan, who was the registered owner at the time of issuing the policy. The R.C book was transferred in the name of the complainant with effect from 27.05.2008. But the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant within 14 days. It is a violation of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case the accident ocurred after 92 days of transfer. As per GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff Package, motor policy should be tranferred to the new registered owner of the vehicle within 14 days of transfer in R.C Book.  The only dispute is that the policy is not transferred in the name of the registered owner within 14 days. As per PW1, the RC book was transferred and the matter was informed to the opposite party within 14 days through the Indus Motors, who arranged policy to the complainant. But the policy is existing and the premium was paid by the complainant for Rs.6,342/-. As per the decision of the Honourable High Court of Kerala reported in 2008 (3) KLT SN 87 (C.No.107) by Honourable Mr.Justice M.N. Krishnan in Krishnan V.Ganga Pradeepan case, M.A.C.A. No.1673 of 2007 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.157 - Transfer of vehicle - Policy standing in the name of previous owner - By virtue of S.157, there is a deemed transfer of policy - Owner is liable to be idemnified by insurer. Held: By virtue of S.157 of the Act, there is a deemed transfer and therefore it has to be held that though the policy stood in the name of the previous owner there is a deemed transfer of the policy and therefore the owner of the vehicle is liable to be indemnified by the insurance company. Also it is reported in 2008 CTJ 1200(CP) (NCDRC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Oreintel Insurance Company Limited and others versus Tanuram Mahanta and another by Honourable Mr.Justice R.C.Jain, Honourable Presiding Member; Dr. P.D.Shenoy, Member. "Insurance-Deficiency in service-Consumer Portection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Section 2(1)(o)-A car purchased by the complainant from its owner-While he got his name registered in its registration book on 7.08.2004, the insurance policy came to be changed in his favour on 4.01.2005-However, the car damaged in an accident on 1.01.2005-Repudiation of the claim by the insurance company on the ground that he did not have insurable interest in the vehicle-District Forum admitted his claim for payment by the insurance company-Dissatisfied with the order so passed, an appeal filed by it before the State Commission-Insurance policy having already been transferred in the complainants name, there could be no reason to deny him the right for indemnification-Appeal dismissed-Revision petition-Insurance company directed to pay the amount already ordered to be paid by the Forums below-Revision petition dismissed". So we think it is not proper to repudiate the claim merely on the reason that the name of the policy owner was not transferred in the name of the complainant. It is a gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The insuracne company is deliberately trying to reject the claim after receiving premium from ordinary lay man. The report filed by the company itself says that there is a loss of Rs.24,845/- caused to the vehicle as per Ext.P1 after depreciation on rubber parts. Hence we direct to pay the same amount to the complainant.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.24,845/- as per Ext.P1 Survey report, to the complainant within 30 days with 12% interest from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - M.G. Rajan

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of RC book

Ext.P2 - Copy of Policy Certificate

Ext.P3 - Repudiation letter dated 21/10/2008

Ext.P4 - Copy of Bill for Rs.27,484/-

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Survey Report dated 16/09/2008.

Ext.R2 - Copy of RC book.