By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                2.  Facts of the complaint:-  The Complainant is the registered owner of KL-12-C-2704 Maruti Verza Car. The vehicle was purchased from the showroom of Opposite Party No.3. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party No.3 had insured the vehicle with Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 had issued Certificate cum Policy schedule to the Complainant through Opposite Party No.3. Policy Number of the vehicle is OG-17-1603-1801-00009380, covering the period from 14.01.2017 to 13.01.2018. On 27.10.2017 the vehicle met with an accident at Cherambadi, Nilgiris, Tamilnadu and caused damages to the vehicle. The Complainant immediately intimated the incident to the Opposite Party No.1 through toll free number and as per the direction of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant produced the vehicle at the work shop of Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 had deputed one surveyor and he had conducted inspection and prepared estimate from the work shop of Opposite Party No.4. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.4 had repaired the vehicle and given bill for Rs.50,380/- and the Opposite Party No.4 had forwarded the bills and claim application to the Opposite Party No.1. But Opposite Party No.1 had not sanctioned the claim amount to the Complainant.  Thereafter, the Complainant paid the bill amount to the Opposite Party No.4 and taken delivery of the vehicle and filed claim application before the Opposite Party No.1, along with work shop bills. The Opposite Party No.1 had forwarded the claim application to the Opposite Party No.2 for processing. The claim application of the Complainant has been numbered by the Opposite Party No.2 as OC-18-1602-1801-00004045. But the Opposite Party No.2 had dragged the matter without paying any amount to the Complainant and at last the Opposite Party No.2 had sent letter to Complainant stating unreasonable excuses for non-payment of the claim amount and thereafter, the Complainant sent registered lawyer notice to the Opposite Party No.2 on 17–01-2018. But on 20-03-2018 the Opposite Party No.2 had repudiated the claim of the Complainant by a letter dated 20-03-2018 stating that the vehicle has already been sold to true value and also stating that signature mismatch in claim form and pan card. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and clarified the position but the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 has not paid the claim amount to the Complainant till date.  The above said acts of the Opposite Parties are negligent service and it caused irreparable loss and hardships to the Complainant and Opposite Parties are responsible for the same. Hence, it is prayed to issue summons to the Opposite Parties, take evidence and direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.50,380/ with 12% interest from 20-01-2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses, loss and inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to the negligent service of the Opposite Parties.

            3.  Commission registered the complaint and summonses were sent to Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 for appearance.  Opposite Party No.1 to 3 appeared and filed version.  Opposite Party No.4 did not appear and hence set ex-parte.

            4.  Contents of Version in brief filed by Opposite Party No.1:-   The Opposite Party No.1 is an insurance broking entity licensed by IRDA and mainly acts as a facilitator of Motor insurance products.  The role of the Opposite Party No.1 is to apprise the customers about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance Companies including the Opposite Party No.2.  After this facilitation, customers buy insurance as per their own will and volition and pay insurance premium which goes to the insurance Company only.  Then, the Insurance Company insures the vehicle and issue Insurance Policy to the customers subject to their own terms and conditions/IRDA guidelines.  In case of any claim on insurance, insurance companies are liable.  Policy issuance, cancellation, appointment of Surveyors for claim investigation and assessment, acceptance or repudiation of claims etc are the sole prerogative of the concerned insurance company only.  So, the Opposite Party No.1 has no role to play in the present matter in dispute and it is prayed that the name of the Opposite Party No.1 is to be deleted from the array of parties.

            5.  Contents of version in brief filed by Opposite Party No.2:- There is no deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the outset for want of cause of action.  Insurance policy is a contract and both the parties are under obligation to obey/fulfil all the terms and conditions of the same in the strict sense of the words written therein.  As the terms and conditions of the policy are sacrosanct, the claim arrived is also processed within the precincts of the policy only.  It is not correct to say that the date of accident is 27.10.2017.  During this period the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 Company.   In this case, the Complainant had sold the vehicle to another party without giving any intimation to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant had not changed the name in the policy. Thereafter, the second Opposite Party got the intimation regarding the accident. The Opposite Party No.2 conducted enquiry and verified the documents and realized the fact that the vehicle had already been sold at the time of accident.  The Complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle bearing No. KL-12-C-2704 Maruthi Verza car. The same was intimated to the Complainant. In these circumstances, the second Opposite Party is not at all liable to provide compensation to the Complainant. No deficiencies in services have been committed by the Opposite Party No.2.  The second Opposite Party received the intimation of accident, collected the details and documents and without any delay the second Opposite Party gave reply to the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant had sold his vehicle to true value on 08-09-2017. That the Complainant had acted in gross violation of relevant provisions of Indian Motor Tariff, which provide that the change in ownership has to be applied for within fourteen days of transfer of ownership and read as: GR.17.Transfers. On transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under a Package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy, so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in their record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance. In case of Package Policies, transfer of the “Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy, or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy, recovery of the difference between the transferee’s entitlement, if any, and that shown on the policy shall be made before effecting the transfer.  A fresh Proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both liability only and Package Policies. Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and a fresh proposal form duly filled and signed.  The old Certificate of insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of Rs.50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee.  On any reason if the old Certificate of Insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new Certificate of Insurance is issued. The Complainant had no insurable interest as the vehicle was already sold before the date of loss and as the policy was also not transferred in the new owner’s name.  That the Opposite Party insurance company limited deputed surveyor to verify and assess the alleged loss. The surveyor conducted survey and assessed the damage to the extent of Rs.27,010/- subject to terms and conditions of policy. Without admitting the liability, it is submitted that liability of Opposite Party No.2 will not be more than the loss assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.27,010/-, if the claim is admissible as per terms and conditions of the Policy. That the loss is not indemenifiable but the surveyor assessed the loss for the information of the insurer and that does not mean that the loss is recoverable from the insurers. The above complaint is filed with malafide intention to derive undeserved gain from the company. The Complainant is not entitled to get an amount of Rs.50,380/-towards the loss and Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses and loss, inconvenience etc. Hence, it is humbly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to the Opposite Parties.

6.  Contents of version in brief filed by Opposite Party No.3:- 

The reliefs sought for in the complaint are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and so the same is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action had arisen against the Opposite Party No.3 to file the above complaint and the Opposite Party No.3 is an unnecessary party in the above complaint and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder. The Opposite Party deny the averments narrated in the complaint. The Opposite Party No.3 denied the averments that the Complainant is the registered owner of KL- 12-C-2704 Maruti Versa Car. From the RTO office, it is now revealed that the ownership of the said vehicle is in the name of Rafeeque T.   1t is false that at the time of purchase the Opposite Party No.3 had insured the vehicle with Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 1 had issued Certificate cum policy schedule to the Complainant through Opposite Party No.3.  The Opposite Party No.3 had no knowledge and role in issuing a policy for the period from 14-01-2017 to 13-01-2018 for a vehicle got registered in the year 2005. All such allegations are baseless.  The Opposite Party No.3 has no voice in selecting the insurance company or issuing insurance to the Complainant as alleged and it is the choice of the customer only.  The Opposite Party No.3 has neither active nor passive role in the allegations levelled in the complaint. Without any proper cause of action against the Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant has filed this case with an intention to drag the Opposite Party No.3 through an unwanted litigation and thereby tarnish the reputation of the Opposite Party No.3 which is nothing but illegal and socially abhorring. The Opposite Party No.3 has to be compensated for the loss and damages caused due to the above act of litigation by the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service. The Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party No.3.

7.  Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1.  Opposite Party No.1 had no oral evidence but Ext.B1 was marked from their side.  Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit, Ext.B2 to B4 marked and the Senior Legal Executive was examined as OPW1.  Opposite Party No.3 had neither oral evidence nor any documents for marking.  Opposite Party No.4 was ex-parte and the complaint was finally heard on 30.06.2023.

8.  On perusal of the complaint, versions filed by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.3, affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Party No.2, documents marked by the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No2, the oral depositions of Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and the arguments of the Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties, we raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the Opposite Parties…?
2. Relief and cost, if any, and the quantum…?

9.  Point No.1:-  According to the Complainant he had insured his Maruti Versa Car bearing Registration No.KL-12-C-2704 purchased from Opposite Party No.3 with the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 had issued Certificate Cum Policy Schedule to the Complainant through Opposite Party No.3. The coverage of the policy was from 14.01.2017 to 13.01.2018.  On 27.10.2017 the vehicle met with an accident which was intimated to Opposite Party No.1 and on the direction of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant produced the vehicle at the workshop of Opposite Party No.4.  Opposite Party No.1 deputed a Surveyor who conducted inspection of the vehicle and prepared estimate.  The vehicle was repaired and Opposite Party No.4 forwarded the bills for claim application to Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 did not sanction the claim amount.  Then, the Complainant paid the bill, took delivery of the vehicle and filed claim application before Opposite Party No.1 who forwarded it to Opposite Party No.2 insurance company, but on 20.03.2018, the claim was repudiated stating that the vehicle was already been sold to true value and also stated that signature mismatch in claim form and pan card.  But, though the Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 they have not paid the claim amount so far, which has caused irreparable loss and hardships to the Complainant and Opposite Parties are responsible for the same and hence this complaint with prayers.  In the version of Opposite Party No.1, they have stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is only an insurance broking entity and they have no role in the present matter in dispute.  In cross-examination of PW1, (the Complainant) has admitted this fact and therefore, we find that there has been no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  In cross-examination for Opposite Party No.3, PW1 has stated that “hml\ A]IShpambn _Ôs¸«v 3þmw FXnÀI£nbpambn _Ôs¸«n«nÃ. 3þmw FXnÀI£nbn \n¶pw bmsXmcp \nhr¯nbpw e`n¡m³ AÀlXbnsöv ]dªm icnbmWv”.   This deposition of the Complainant is sufficient to prove that there has not been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party No.3.  Opposite Party No.4 is the Manager/Proprietor of the service centre who has repaired the vehicle for which the repair charges were admittedly paid by the Complainant and therefore he has no role in dispute with the insurance claim of the vehicle and hence, there has been no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from Opposite Party No.4.  As to Opposite Party No.2, they are the insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured which is evident from Ext.A2 document. The fact of insurance of the vehicle is admitted in cross-examination by OPW1 (Opposite Party No.2).  Also admitted that the RC owner is Chacko. M. D (Complainant).  The other admissions of the Opposite Party No.2 in cross-examination are “full cover insurance BWv. 27.10.2017 \v hml\w accident Bb hnhcw I¼\n¡v Adnbmw. 06.11.2017 \v survey \S¯nbn«p­v.  AXv  B1  ImWmw. R§fpsS affidavit   accident hnhcw R§Ä Andªn«nsöv ]dªn«pffXv icnbÃ.  hml\w ]cmXn¡mc³ hnäp t]mbn F¶dnªXn\memWv claim sImSp¡mXncp¶Xv.  hml\w hnäXv a\Ênem¡nbXv tcJIÄ ]cntim[n¨mWv F¶v affidavit  ]dªn«p­v AXnsâ tcJ lmPcm¡nbn«nÔ.  hml\w repair sN¿p¶Xn\v 50,380/-þ cq]bmsW¶Xv R§Ä \ntj[n¨n«nÃ.  hml\w ssIamdpt¼mÄ    sale letter Asæn RC transfer D­mtI­XmWv”. As per Ext.B4 documents produced and marked by Opposite Party No.2, the claim is seen repudiated by Opposite Party No.2 stating as follows “As per the information gathered and available document, it is observed that the vehicle has already been sold and also noticed signature mismatch in claim form and Pan Card.  So, at the material time of accident you do not have any insurable interest in the subject vehicle”.    But, at the time of oral evidence the Complainant has stated that “A]IS¯n\v ap³]v  true value {]Imcw hml\w Rm³ hnän«nÔ.  “claim form  H¸n«ncn¡p¶Xv Rm\mWv. complaint­  H¸n«ncn¡p¶Xv Rm\mWv. claim form se H¸pw complaint se H¸pw FtâXmWv”.  But the contention of Opposite Party No.2 is that the claim was repudiated as the vehicle was sold  thorough true value.  To substantiate this contention of the Opposite Party No.2, they have not produced any document such as the copy of RC, sale letter or RC transfer or any other reliable evidences before the Commission.  Therefore, this contention of the Opposite Party No.2 is unsustainable.  The Opposite Party No.2 has admitted the insurance Policy.  They have also admitted in cross-examination that RC owner is Chacko. M. D.  They have also admitted the accident and the repair charges as per the Surveyor’s Report.  They have contented that there have been mismatch in signature in claim form and Pan Card.  This contention is not sustainable as the Complainant has deposed in Cross-examination that the signature in the claim form and complaint are of the Complainant himself.  The Opposite Party No.2 has not processed the claim application of the Complainant in good faith or with a positive attitude instead they were in hurry to repudiate the claim of the Complainant with an evil mind to escape from paying claim amount in bad faith.  So, in view of the above discussion, it is seen evident that the Opposite Party No.2 has repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant without any reasonable ground.  This is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party No.2.  Therefore, Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party No.2.

10. Point No.2:-  As Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party No.2, they are liable to pay the insurance claim and compensation to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed

1. To pay Rs.50,380/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Only) as insurance claim amount in respect of the above vehicle with interest @ 9% from 04.03.2020, the date of complaint.
2. To pay Rs.25,190/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Only) as compensation towards expenses, loss and inconvenience caused to the Complainant.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20^th day of July 2023.

Date of Filing:-04.03.2020.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-                   

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              M. D. Chacko.                                 Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Devi. P.                                              Senior Legal Executive, Bajaj.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Certificate cum Policy Schedule for 14.01.2017 to 13.01.2018.

A2.                  Copy of Letter.                               

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Copy of Certificate of Renewal of Registration.         Dt:27.01.2021.

B2.                  Final Survey Report.                                                          Dt:06.11.2017.

B3.                  Transcript of Proposal for Private Car Package Policy.

B4.                  Copy of Letters (7 Numbers).                                         Dt:20.02.2018.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-