Between:- <br /> Sheebi Joseph,<br /> Purackal House,<br /> Ettichuvadu P.O.,<br /> Ranni. <br /> (By Adv. Sri. G.M. Idiculla) .... Complainant.<br /> <br /> And:-<br /> 1.M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office, T.K. Road,<br /> Thiruvalla, represented by its<br /> Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office, Pulimoottil Building,<br /> P.B. No.17, First Floor, Post Office Junction,<br /> Punalur.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. Sam Koshy)<br /> Addl.3. B. Sreekumar,<br /> Shanthi Bhavan,<br /> Manjalloor P.O., Pathanapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. V. Shaji Samuel) .... Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant’s case is as follows: On 10.10.2002, the complainant has purchased a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. KL-02F/4800 for Rs.2,27,000/- from B. Sreekumar, Santhi Bhavan, Manjalloor P.O., Pathanapuram as per the sale agreement executed by them. The said vehicle was duly insured with the first and second opposite parties under the policy No.2003/903 for a period of one year from 15.5.2002 to 14.5.2003. On 1.1.2003, the said vehicle while parking at Nelko Junction, Thodupuzha – Pala road was stolen from there. A crime was registered as crime No.3/2003 at Thodupuzha Police Station for the above-said theft. After proper investigation, the accused could not be detected and hence no recovery was effected. Police filed the final report to that effect. The theft was reported to the opposite parties and claimed the loss of the vehicle. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of compensation. The complainant is the legal owner and possessor of the vehicle as per the sale agreement and as per the Sale of Goods Act, the insurer is legally bound to compensate the loss of the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is a deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation and other reliefs. The complainant pray for allowing the complaint as prayed for in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. All the opposite parties have filed version. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed a common version in the following lines.<br /> <br /> 4. The opposite parties have admitted that they have issued a Motor policy No.441401/903/2003 covering the Mahindra Jeep bearing No.KL-02/4800 from 15.5.2002 to 14.5.2003. The said policy was issued in the name of B. Sreekumar, Santhi Bhavan, Manchalloor and he had reported the theft of the vehicle and put forward a claim under the policy. The opposite parties have no privity of contract with the complainant, as his name does not found either in the Registration certificate or in the insurance policy. On the basis of the principles enshrined under the sale of Goods Act, the jeep as a movable item is not applicable in this case, that may be binding as the disputes between the transferor and transferee concerned. That does not Ipso facto applies to the insurance company without being proper change of insurance policy in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act, Rules and General Regulation No.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. The complainant has no privity of contract with the insurance company. The claim for theft cannot be entertained without proper change in the transfer of insurance policy. Therefore, no deficiency in service from the part of 1st and 2nd opposite party. Hence this, complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 1st and 2nd opposite party canvassed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. 3rd Addl. opposite party has filed a version in the following line:- 3rd opposite party had sold his jeep to the complainant and the jeep was insured with Oriental insurance company and insurance policy was in his name at the time of theft of the vehicle. 3rd opposite party affirm that he has no objection in getting the award amount by the complainant and he would neither raise any claim nor invoke any indemnification under the above said insurance policy against the insurance company.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration in this complaint are the following:-<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for<br /> in the complaint?<br /> (ii)Relief and Cost.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. 2nd opposite party has been examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. After the closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument notes and heard both parties.<br /> <br /> 8. Points 1 & 2:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant has filed an affidavit and on the basis of affidavit filed by him, he has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced has been marked through him as Exts.A1 to A9. PW1 stated that on 10.10.2002, he has purchased a Mahindra Jeep from 3rd Addl. opposite party for Rs.2,27,000/-. The vehicle No.KL-02/F-4800 Mahindra Jeep was duly insured with 1st and 2nd opposite party and the insurance policy certificate produced by him is marked as Ext.A1. The sale agreement executed between the complainant and 3rd addl. opposite party is marked as Ext.A2. On 1.1.2003, the said jeep was stolen from Thodupuzha-Pala road. A crime was registered at Thodupuzha police station as Crime No.3/03. Certified copy of the FIR of the said crime is marked as Ext.A3 and FIS is marked as Ext.A3(a). Scene Mahazar prepared by the police is marked as Ext.A4. After the investigation a final report of the above said crime, stating that the accused could not detected and the recovery of the vehicle cannot be effected was submitted by the police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Thodupuzha is marked as Ext.A5. Exts.A4 and A5 are not certified copies but the opposite party has not objected in marking it. The theft was reported to the 1st and 2nd opposite party. The claim for compensation was repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 3.6.2004. The said letter produced by PW1 has been marked as Ext.A6. Road tax remittance token for Rs.4,800/- is marked as Ext.A7 and permit card issued by the Regional Transport Authority is marked as Ext.A8. R.C. Book in the name of 3rd Addl. opposite party is marked as Ext.A9. The rejection of the claim by the opposite parties without any valid reason is a deficiency in service and hence PW1 prays for allowing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties cross-examined PW1. At the time of cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he has not made any correspondence with insurance company about the claim and he brought out that from 10.10.2002 onwards the vehicle was in his possession and R.C. Book and other documents were also in his possession. By answering a question put by opposite parties counsel, PW1 stated that he has not filed any application for transferring the ownership of the vehicle before the R.T.O or took any effort for changing the name in the R.C. Book or insurance policy in his favour and also added that as per the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the claim.<br /> <br /> 10 At the time of re-examination, PW1 deposed that the vehicle has insurance coverage with 1st and 2nd opposite party at the time of purchasing and during the theft.<br /> <br /> 11. The 1st opposite party has adduced oral evidence as DW1 based on the proof affidavit filed in support of the common version of the 1st and 2nd opposite party. DW1 deposed that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have no privity of contract with the complainant. His name is not find in the Registration Certificate or in the insurance policy. The claim for theft cannot be entertained without proper change in the transfer of insurance policy. The procedure followed in the case of transfer of package policies are governed as per G.R.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff and such transfer was not effected. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 12. The learned counsel for the complainant cross-examined DW1. DW1 admitted that the vehicle has valid insurance coverage with them at the time of the theft and he adds that policy was invalid as the ownership was not changed and he also stated that claim is entitled only to the legal owners and it can be seen in page 7 of Indian Motor Tariff (General Regulation). Certified copy of Page No.7 produced is marked through DW1 as Ext.B1.<br /> <br /> 13. Coming through the documents marked from the side of the complainant, Ext.A1 is the insurance policy certificate of the vehicle KL.02-F/4800 Mahindra Jeep in the name of the 3rd Addl. opposite party. As per the policy, the vehicle has valid insurance coverage from 15.5.2002 to 14.5.2003. Ext.A2 is the vehicle sale agreement dated 10.10.2002 executed between the complainant and 3rd addl. opposite party. Ext.A3 is the FIR of the Crime No.3 of 2003 prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha and Ext.Ext.A3(a) is the F.I statement given by the complainant in Crime 3/03. Ext.A4 is the copy of the scene mahazar dated 2.1.2003 regarding the Crime No.3/03. Ext.A5 is the copy of the final report regarding crime No.3/03 filed before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court II, Thodupuzha. Ext.A6 is the repudiating letter regarding the insurance claim of the vehicle 02/F-4800 dated 3.6.2004 issued by the 2nd opposite party, to the 3rd addl. opposite party. Ext.A7 is the tax token of the state vehicle and Ext.A8 is the permit issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Punalur and Ext.A9 is the Original of the R.C. Book of the vehicle.<br /> <br /> 14. Coming to the documents marked from the side of the 1st and 2nd opposite party, Ext.B1 is the Page No.7 of G.R.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff. <br /> <br /> 15. The contention put forward by the complainant in this case is that he had purchased the vehicle having a valid insurance policy, which expires on 14.5.2003. But the vehicle was stolen on 1.1.2003 for which a crime was also registered by the Thodupuzha police on the basis of the first information statement given by the complainant. After the investigation, police filed the final report before the J.F.M.C.II, Thodupuzha stating that the accused could not be detected and hence no recovery of the vehicle could be effected. In the circumstances, he is entitled to get the insurance amount from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 16. On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that the complainant is a stranger to the opposite parties, as the stolen vehicle is not in the name of the complainant and the insurance policy is also not in the name of the complainant. Though the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from one Sreekumar, the 3rd addl. opposite party, the transfer of ownership and insurance policy were not effected in favour of the complainant as stipulated in the M.V. Act and Insurance Rules. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 17. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the complainant cited two decisions. 1. Rikhi Ram Vs.Sukhrania (case No.131 short notes page No.99 KLT 2003 I). According to the learned counsel as per the citation, transfer of ownership of the vehicle is not material for allowing the insurance claim. But on going through the citation it can be seen that the absence of intimation of transfer of ownership to the insurance company or in the absence of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the transferee will not stand in the way of allowing claim to 3rd parties. It is also seen in the said citation that the transferee is not entitled any personal benefit in the absence of transfer of ownership and transfer of policy in favour of the transferee.<br /> <br /> 18. The other citation submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant is Santokh Singh Vs.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another the decision of Union Territory CDRC Chandigarh reported in II 2004 CPJ 412, the dictum in this case is that the benefit under the policy in force shall automatically accrued to the new owner, if the transfer of ownership of the vehicle is effected in accordance with M.V. Act. But in this case, the transfer of ownership of the stolen vehicle is n`ot effected in favour of the complainant in accordance with the M.V. Act. So we don’t find any applicability of the cited case to this case. <br /> 19. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the opposite parties cited a ruling of Hon’ble SC (M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Insurance Company reported in 1996 I SC cases 221) In the said case the ownership of the vehicle was transferred but the policy was not transferred. Consequent to the accident the transferee put the claim before the insurance company. In that case, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the policy was not transferred. But in the present case, the facts are different. Transfer of ownership or transfer of policy was not effected and the complainant has not put any claim before the insurance company.<br /> <br /> 20. On a perusal of the decisions submitted by the counsels it can be seen that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the transferee and the transferor put their claim properly before the Insurance companies. But the complainant herein has not transferred the ownership and the policy of the vehicle in his name. There is no evidence even for such an attempt. It is also pertinent to note that he has not made any claim before the insurance company. In this regard, the only thing brought before the Forum is that the 3rd addl. opposite party filed a claim before the insurance company in his name, which was repudiated by the opposite party stating that the 3rd addl. opposite party has not in possession of the vehicle and he has sold the vehicle to another and he had communicated the sale to R.T.O, Punalur and hence he is not entitled to get the claim as he is not the owner of the stolen vehicle. Without making any claim before the insurance company by the complainant and without the repudiation of the claim, there is no cause of action for the complainant to file a complaint before the Forum. So the stand taken by the opposite parties that ‘the complainant is a stranger‘ to them can be justified in this circumstances. The complainant never approached the opposite parties for the insurance claim. In the absence of the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, transfer of insurance policy in favour of the complainant and in the absence of lodging any claim or demand before the insurance company by the complainant in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, we cannot found any deficiency of service from the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The documents Exts.A1 to A9 marked from the side of the complainant is also not sufficient to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the complaint. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed even though the complainant is the real sufferor.<br /> <br /> 21. In the result, we find no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence this O.P. is dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of March, 2008.<br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President).<br /> Smt. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Appendix:-<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Sheebi Joseph.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Certificate-cum-policy schedule.<br /> A2 : Sale deed dated 10.10.2002.<br /> A3 : Photo-copy of FIR dated 2.1.2003 of Idukki Police Station.<br /> A3(a) : Photo-copy of the F.I. Statement.<br /> A4 : Photo-copy of the mahazar dated 2.1.2003 regarding Crime No.3/03.<br /> A5 : Photo-copy of the final report regarding Crime No.3/03.<br /> A6 : Letter dated 3.6.2004 issued by the Senior Branch Manager, Oriental <br /> Insurance Co. Ltd., Punalur to the addl. 3rd opposite party.<br /> A7 : Tax Receipt issued by Motor Vehicle Dept.<br /> A8 : Permit (Form P.C.O) issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer,<br /> Punalur.<br /> A9 : R.C. Book.<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> <br /> DW1 : Kunju Kunju Chacko.<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> <br /> B1 : General Regulation No.17 of the Indian Motor Tariff.<br /> <br /> By Order,<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br /> <br /> Copy to:- 1. Sheebi Joseph, Purackal House, Ettichuvadu.P.O., Ranni.<br /> 2.The Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office,<br /> T.K. Road, Thiruvalla.<br /> 3.The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Pulimoottil-<br /> Building, p.B.No.17, 1st Floor, Post Office Junction, Punalur.<br /> 4.B. Sreekumar, Shanthi Bhavan, Manchalloor. P.O., Pathanapuram.<br /> 5.Stock File.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />