By G. Yadunadhan, President: The petition was filed on27-11-2001 alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party. Petition was dismissed by the Forum. Complainant went up for appeal. The State Commission heard the matter and remanded back for fresh disposal. As per the direction of the State Commission Forum issued notice to both parties. Heard both parties. The case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a 1998 model Maruthi 800 car, bearing Registration No. KL-11-H.2270. The previous owner of the vehicle was Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Limited. The ownership of the vehicle in the registration certificate and the insurance policy covering the vehicle was in the name of the said financier. The vehicle met with two accidents, one on 1-6-01 and followed by another on 22-7-01. The complainant had lodged a claim to the opposite party. The opposite party had perused the records, conducted an enquiry in the matter and orally agreed to indemnify the loss and permitted the complainant to carry out the repairs. Later on 7-8-01 the opposite party had repudiated the liability raising untenable ground that the ownership of the vehicle in the registration certificate has been transferred to the name of the complainant and despite this fact the insurance policy has been taken in the name of financier and therefore the respondent is not liable to indemnify the complainant. Immediately after the purchase of the vehicle complainant had applied to the registering authority to change the name of ownership to the complainant’s name in the registration certificate. On 28-8-2000 the date on which the policy was commenced, registration certificate was not handed over to the complainant after making appropriate endorsement. This fact was known to the opposite party. Therefore having accepted the premium in full and agreed to indemnify the vehicle knowing fully the whole facts, the opposite party is not justified in repudiating the liability. Therefore the present attitude of the opposite party repudiating the liability amounts to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service. Hence complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.82169/- along with 18% interest and also pay a compensation of Rs.5000/-. Version filed by the opposite party it is admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. KL-11-H-2270 car was insured in the name of Manappuram General Finance and Leasing for a period from 28-8-2000 to 27-8-2001. the allegation that the complainant purchased the said vehicle from the above party are all matters to be proved by the complainant. The policy of the above vehicle was renewed from 28-8-2000 in the name of Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. till 27-8-2001. In between no one approached this opposite party to transfer the policy to any other name. It was reported to this opposite party that the said vehicle met with two accidents on 1-6-01 and 22-7-01. On receipt of the intimation about the accidents this opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the extend of damages to the said vehicle and two separate reports were submitted by surveyors. It is true that this opposite party had repudiated the said claim on the ground that the ownership of the vehicle in the registration certificate has been transferred to the name of the complainant with effect from 15-8-2000 whereas the policy was in the name of Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. Even after the transfer of the ownership policy becomes void one due to lack of insurable interest. The further allegation that the complainant had spent Rs.82169/- for carrying the necessary repairs are all false and denied by this opposite party. According to the report of surveyors, the loss assessed to the vehicle for the accident occurred on 22-7-01 amounts to Rs.8121/- and the loss assessed to the vehicle for the accident occurred on 1-6-01 amounts to Rs.69312/-. Since there is no deficiency in service from the opposite party the above claim has to be dismissed. The points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency on the part of opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, if so what is the compensation and cost. Complainant was not adduced any oral evidence only documentary evidence. Ext.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party has no oral evidence. Ext.R1 to R3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party-1. Ext.A2 is the Power of Attorney. Opposite party produced Ext.R1, R2 and R3 documents. Ext.R1 shows that the survey report regarding the accident occurred on 22-7-01. As per survey report the damage was assessed as Rs.8121/-. After a lapse of few days the same vehicle met with another accident on 1-6-01 at Thamarassery. In that accident as per survey report the damage assessed for Rs.69312/. Only observation made by the State Commission to consider the decision of 2007 CPJ National Commission in Sree Narayana Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Limited. As per the decision transfer of the vehicle’s existing policy also treated as transferred till the expiry date. In this case policy stands in the name of 3rd party, R.C. in the name of actual owner. As per 2007 CPJ National Commission held that GIC issued a Circular in 1994 with regards to transfer of the vehicle. While transferring the vehicle the insurance certificate is automatically transferred in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is a part of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulation. In view of Motor Tariff Regulation policy would continue until expiry of the existing policy. Insurance Companies are suppressing this fact and taking advantage. Under these circumstances complainant is entitled to get damages for Rs.69312/- towards the accident occurred on 1-6-01. Hence we are of the opinion that opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.69312/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing till realization to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5000/-. No cost is ordered separately. Pronounced in the open court this the 23rd day of July 2010. Date of Filing:27.11.2001. SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of letter dt. 7-8-2001 issued by O.P. to the complainant. A2. Photocopy of Power of Attorney. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. R1. survey Report dt. 14-8-2001. R2. Survey Report dt. 17-7-2001. R3. Photocopy of Certificate-cum-policy schedule. Witness examined for the complainant: None Witness examined for the opposite party None Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
