IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.84/2010 (Filed on 11.06.2010)
Between:
Mathew George,
S/o. P.M. George Paradayil,
7 Erumakkad, Aranmula,
Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Pin – 689 532.
(By Adv. Jacob Abraham) ….. Complainant.
And:
1. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Pazhavangadi. P.O., Ranni,
Pathanamthitta.
2. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office,
Ebenezer Gardents,
Cochin – 682 024.
(By Adv. P.D. Varghese)
3. George Mathew,
Kuzhikalayil House,
Keekozhoor.P.O.,
Ranni. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Facts of the case in brief is as follows: The complainant is the registered owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KL-3L.236. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the managers of Oriental Insurance Company. The 3rd opposite party is the previous owner of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party vide a comprehensive policy valid from 14.8.08 to 13.8.09.
3. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle from the 3rd opposite party and thereafter he intimated the Road Transport Office, Pathanamthitta regarding the purchase and complied with all the formalities with regard to transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name. The complainant has got the ownership of the said vehicle in his name and as on date the complainant is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The said vehicle is covered under the above said policy for a period of one year and the premium has been already paid by the 3rd opposite party who is the previous owner. Complainant did not intimate the opposite parties regarding the change of ownership of the vehicle. Thus the vehicle stands insured in the name of the 3rd opposite party i.e. the previous owner of the vehicle.
4. The said vehicle while being in the ownership of the complainant met with an accident on 24.4.09. The matter was intimated to Aranmula Police Station and G.D. entry was also made. As no person was injured in the accident police did not registered any case. The damaged vehicle was taken to Focuz Motors Workshop and repair work was done. Complainant incurred a total expense of `78,708. Complainant sent several letters to opposite parties 1 and 2, but they have not settled the claim. At last on 1.6.09, 1st opposite party sent a letter stating that they are not liable to settle the claim as there is no contractual obligation with the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the claim amount of ` 75,708 with 12% interest and compensation of `1,00,000 each along with cost from opposite parties 1 and 2.
5. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite parties 1 and 2 admitted the issuance of policy and the occurrence of accident. According to them, when they received the information of the accident they arranged to conduct survey and investigation of the incident for settling the claim. A claim form was submitted by the insured. While so, a letter dated 27.5.09 received from complainant stating that he is the owner at the time of the accident and also stating that he had sent claim form and other documents on 22.5.09. When two persons claimed the insurance benefit upon the same incident for one and the same vehicle, they were not in a position to settle the claim in favour of a particular person.
6. According to them, the insured might have transferred the insured vehicle without intimating the same to insurer, which will disentitle the insured from claiming any compensation under the policy. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any benefits under the policy. According to them, it is true that complainant is the registered owner of the insured car. But 3rd opposite party is the previous owner of the insured car is not correct. The insured vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the 3rd opposite party is not correct. As per the registration certificate, the vehicle stands in the name of the complainant whereas the insurance stands in the name of the 3rd opposite party. As the complainant and 3rd opposite party had submitted rival claims, opposite parties 1 and 2 are not in a position to settle the claim and under these circumstances they did not settle the claim. Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
7. 3rd opposite party is exparte.
8. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
9. Evidence of the complainant consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.B1 and B3. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
10. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 is the copy of claim form of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the G.D entry issued by Aranmula Police Station. Ext.A3 is the estimate and bills issued by Focus Motors. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter demanding claim form dated 2.5.09 issued to 1st opposite party. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter dated 22.5.09 issued to 1st opposite party. Ext.A6 is the letter dated 27.5.09 issued to complainant by 1st opposite party. Ext.A7 is the letter dated 1.6.09 issued to complainant by 1st opposite party. Ext.A8 series are four postal receipts of letters issued to opposite parties 1 and 2.
11. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, Manager (Administration) of opposite parties filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the copy of claim form submitted by the insured, George Mathew. Ext.B2 is the letter dated 27.5.09 issued to 1st opposite party by complainant. Ext.B3 is the certified copy of policy with condition.
12. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that his vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. Even though the vehicle is insured with opposite parties 1 and 2, his claim was denied by opposite parties 1 and 2 without any valid reason. Opposite parties 1 and 2’s contention is that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle whereas the insurance stands in the name of 3rd opposite party. Complainant has not transferred the insurance policy and therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 at the time of accident. Moreover, complainant and 3rd opposite party submitted rival claims and they cannot settle the claim as per condition.
13. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the accident and damages sustained to the insured vehicle. The only dispute is that complainant has no insurable interest at the time of accident. On a perusal of Ext.A1 and Ext.B1. It is evident that complainant and 3rd opposite party submitted separate claims. Therefore, the allegation of opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the rival claims is true and they are not in a position to settle the claim.
14. It is pertinent to note that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle. As per GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff the intimation of transfer of vehicle would be informed to the insurance company within 14 days. Complainant purchased the vehicle from 3rd opposite party. He admitted that he did not intimated opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the change of ownership and the vehicle stands insured in the name of 3rd opposite party. Therefore, it is crystal clear that complainant violated the terms and condition. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is not allowable.
15. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of September, 2011.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mathew George
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the policy certificate issued by the 1st opposite party
to the complainant.
A2 : G.D entry issued by Aranmula Police Station.
A3 : Photocopy of the estimate and bills issued by Focus Motors to the
complainant.
A4 : Photocopy of letter dated 2.5.09 sent by 3rd opposite party to 1st
opposite party.
A5 : Photocopy of letter dated 22.5.09 sent by 3rd opposite party to 1st
opposite party.
A6 : Letter dated 27.5.09 sent by 1st opposite party to 3rd opposite party.
A7 : Letter dated 1.6.09 sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant.
A8 series : Speed post receipts (4 in Nos.)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : S. Krishnamoorthy
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of claim form submitted by the complainant.
B2 : Letter dated 27.5.09 sent by the complainant to 1st and 2nd opposite
parties.
B3 : Photocopy of policy with condition.
(By Order)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Mathew George, 7 Erumakkad, Aranmula, Kozhencherry
Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist., Pin – 689 532.
(2) The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Pazhavangadi. P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office,
Ebenezer Gardents, Cochin – 682 024.
(4) George Mathew, Kuzhikalayil House, Keekozhoor.P.O.,
Ranni.
(5) The Stock File.
