Date of filing : 10-07-07 Date of order :01-07-09 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.46/07 Dated this, the 1st day of July 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Shamil.K.T, S/o.Saifudeen.K.T, R/at K.T. Ahamed House, } Complainant Kolathotty, Po. Chemnad, Kasaragod. (Adv. A.B.Nair, Kasaragod) Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Third floor, } Opposite party Highline Plaza, M.G.Road, Kasaragod. (Adv. U.S.Balan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Facts leading to the case are as follows: Shamil.K.T. the complainant herein purchased the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D 9691 from one Musthafa. It was duly insured with opposite party. However, the policy was stood in the name of Musthafa. During the subsistence of policy on 16-09-2006 the vehicle involved in an accident. A tempo autorikshaw hit against it and suffered damages. The matter was informed to the insurer. After the survey by the surveyor complainant repaired the vehicle and submitted the claim. But it was repudiated on the ground that at the material time of accident the complainant has no insurable interest on the vehicle. 2. Opposite party contended that on the date of accident i.e. on 16-09-2006 one Musthafa was the policy holder and hence the claim lacks bonafides on the ground that the claimant has no insurable interest. Opposite party further took a strange contention that the financier had already settled the bills due to the repairer. 3. The complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A6 series marked. For opposite party, Sri. E. Damodaran, Branch Manager, Kasaragod Branch of opposite party company filed affidavit and Exts B1 to B6 series marked. He was cross-examined by counsel for the complainant. 4. The contentions of the opposite party are not legally maintainable. The learned counsel for the opposite party Sri. U. S. Balan strenuously argued emphasizing much reliance on the IRDA approval guide lines w.e.f. 01-01-07 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Complete insultations (P) Ltd V. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, reported in AIR 1996 SC 586, the decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of M. Kondaiah V. Yeseen Fatima, reported in AIR 1986 AP 62, the decision of Himchal Pradesh High Court in the case of Pushpa and Others V. Shakuntala & Ors reported in 2006 ACJ 932, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case C. Govindan V New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in 1999 (3) Supreme 506, the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Madan Singh V. United India Inurance Co.Ltd & Anr reported in 2009 NCJ 375 (NC). According to him the complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle as on the date of accident and hence he is not entitled for the compensation claimed. 5. The complainant purchased the vehicle from Musthafa that was having a valid insurance policy. The vehicle was met with accident on 16-09-06. At that time the transfer process of the vehicle was pending before the Registering Authority. The vehicle was subsequently transferred in the name of the complainant Shamil on 23-11-06. However the transfer was effected with effect from 26-08-06. The HP endorsement against the Financier Adinath Investment is also seen cancelled on 23-11-06. But the policy is seen transferred in the name of Shamil K.T only on 13-02-07. 6. Shri. U. S. Balan the counsel for opposite party submitted that as per the G.R.17 (General Regulation) of Indian Motor Tariff on transfer of ownership the Liability only cover either under a liability only policy or a package policy, is deemed to have transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. In respect of Own Damage portion of package policy transfer endorsement shall be issued only after receipt of appropriate request from the transferee. Further a fresh proposal form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both liability only on package policies’. He therefore submitted that since neither the transferee nor the transferor has complied the steps for the transfer the policy, Opposite party is not liable to indemnify the loss. 7. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court counsel for opposite party maintained that the deemed transfer as envisaged under Sec.157 that is coming under Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act deals with the liabilities of the insurer against third party claims only. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the complainant Shri. A.B. Nair maintained that since the transfer procedure of the vehicle was pending at the time of accident the transfer of insurance policy was not possible before the transfer of the vehicle. Hence the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss sustained to the complainant. 9. It is a fact that in the ordinary course of conduct the insurer will not transfer the certificate of insurance in the name of transferee unless the RC is not transferred in his name though it is not specifically mentioned in Secs 147(1)(b) and Sec. 149 (1) of the MV Act that policy shall be issued in favour of the registered owner of vehicle alone. 10. In this case the application for transfer of the ownership was pending registration at the time of accident. 11. As per GR 17 of IMT eventhough it is stated that the liability only cover is deemed to have transferred in favour of the transferee with effect from the date of transfer, the said transfer was happened to be endorsed only much after the accident. Hence considering the peculiar nature of the case the liability cover of own damage portion also could deemed to have been transferred in the name of complainant and the claim should have been settled. 12. It may be stated that the insurance cover was in respect of vehicle and not in favour of person as the ownership may change during the subsistence of the policy and the change in registration certificate as well as insurance policy remains merely an official formality and therefore the opposite party could have obtain an indemnity bond from the subsequent purchaser (the complainant/ transferee) and no objection certificate from the policy holder/original purchaser transferor) while settling the claim. 13. The contention that the hirer Adinath Invests Ltd has settled the claim of the repairer M/s Arjun Associates has no force and it is clear that at the time of accident the financier had no interest on the said vehicle even though the Hire purchase cancellation was endorsed only on 23-11-2006. 14. As per Ext. B5 survey report the surveyor has assessed the damages as Rs.13354.29 after deducting the policy excess and salvage value. Therefore the complainant is entitled for the said amount. Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 13354.29 (rounded to Rs.13300/-) with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint 10-07-07 till payment with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photocopy of FIR A2. Photocopy of charge sheet A3. Photocopy of driving license. A4.Photocopy of RC A5.Copy of policy A6 Series bills B1. Proposal for motor insurance. B2. Insurance policy. B3. Registered returned cover B4. Letter issued by opposite party to complainant. B5.Motor Final Survey Report. B6 series bills DW1. E.Damodaran Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
