BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 31/08/2009
Date of Order : 29/07/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 477/2009
Between
A.M. Mohammed, | :: | Complainant |
Alamkunnel (H), Pallarimangalam. P.O., Kothamangalam. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha) |
And
M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., | :: | Opposite party |
Divisional Office, T.H. Tower, Market. P.O., Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. A.R. George, Anthikkatt House, P.O. Vennala, Cochin - 28) |
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The vehicle was registered as a taxi. Due to other business commitments, the complainant entrusted the vehicle with Mr. K.K. George, Kannaparambil House, Kadavoor. P.O. Mr. George had agreed to purchase the vehicle. But due to his financial constrains he failed to pay the entire money for purchasing the vehicle. Hence the vehicle was not transferred to Mr. K.K. George. While so, the vehicle was stolen from the premises of Mr. K.K. George on 25-01-2009. The market value of the car at the time of theft was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The claim was lodged with the opposite party. But the claim was not settled so far. The reason for non-settlement is that the owner has been changed and hence the complainant is not having any insurable interest. But it is not correct and unsustainable. The possession or the ownership of the vehicle was not transferred to anybody till the date. The act of the opposite party to delay the settlement on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency of service. According to the complainant, he is entitled for the market value of the stolen vehicle Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation costs from the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party :
The opposite party issued policy in the name of the complainant covering vehicle No. KL-17/1092 Tata Indica Passenger carrying commercial vehicle for the period from 16-12-2005 to 15-12-2006. Thereafter, the policy has been renewed time to time without any break. The present policy for the period from 16-12-2008 to 15-12-2009 for an IDV of Rs. 1,68,000/-. The currency of the last policy, the alleged theft of the vehicle occurred. The proposal for insurance was given in the name of the complainant. However, the signature in the said proposal form is seen to match the signature of the present owner of the car ie., one Mr. George. K.K. Kannaparambil House, Kadavoor. P.O. Panakkara as evidenced from the signature in the FIS relating to the police case and also in the letter issued to Sub Regional Transport Office, Kothamanagalam. In connection with the alleged theft of the car in question. Further, as per the FIS relating to the police case, the said George has stated that his vehicle KL-17/1092 was stolen, and also that he had purchased the car from the complainant on 20-12-2003 for an amount of RS. 2,77,500/-. The above material evidence will go to show that the above car was already sold to the above George in the year 2003, and thereafter, the complainant had absolutely no insurable interest over the same. The complainant has also not produced any such final investigation report before the opposite party, which is a mandatory requirement for the purpose of processing the application. Further the complainant has also not produced before the opposite party, the other mandatory documents like the original registration certificate of the vehicle, RC Extract of the vehicle noting matter of theft therein, both keys of the vehicle, etc. Therefore, the complainant's allegation that the opposite party has not settled his claim so far, is devoid of any truth or substance. The policies issued by the opposite party was proposed in the name of the complainant, the said George was enjoying the No Claim Bonus which would have been accrued only to the complainant. Therefore, the said George enjoyed the unmerited NCB amounts of Rs. 2233.70, Rs. 2375.21 and Rs. 2533.34 totaling to Rs. 7,142.25. In fact, the NCB to enjoyed by the above George was as high as 50%. The complainant cannot maintain any claim from the opposite party, and consequently this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant and the opposite party appeared through counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on his side. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for determination are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount of the stolen vehicle from the opposite party?
Costs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 registration certificate shows that the ownership of the vehicle is in the name of the complainant. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the policy and also with regard to the theft. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant was already sold the stolen vehicle to one Mr. George in the year 2003. Hence the complainant has no insurable interest over the same. The IDV of the vehicle is only Rs. 1,68,000/-. But the claim is of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The opposite party contended that Ext. B1 theft intimation letter, Ext. B2 copy of the letter to the R.T.O. and Ext. B4 copy of the letter are submitted and signed by Mr. K.K. George and not by the complainant. Ext. B3 is the copy of FIR in which also it is mentioned that the complaint filed by the said George. The complainant admitted the same during the cross-examination.
6. The case of the complainant is that at the time of theft the vehicle was under the possession of Mr. K.K. George, but the ownership of the same was still with the complainant. Ext. A1 registration certificate shows that the ownership of the vehicle is with the complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of the policy which is in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, being the registered owner of the vehicle, he is entitled to get the claim amount. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the following decision to substantiate his case. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble S.C. in Pushpa @ Leela R. Ors. Vs. Shakuntala & Ors. (2011 SAR (Civil) 149). The decision was rendered under the Motor Vehicle Act, Section 166, in which it is so held that so long as the name of the earlier owner continues in R.T.O. records as the owner of the vehicle was equally liable to make payment of compensation amount. Further since an insurance policy was taken out in his name, he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
7. In the instant case as per the records, the complainant is the registered owner and the policy was taken in his name. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount from the opposite party as per norms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not ordering any costs of the proceedings.
8. Therefore, we allow the complaint as follows :-
The complainant is directed to submit the necessary documents before the opposite party within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
The opposite party shall process the claim application of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receiving the documents from the complainant and pay the insurance claim amount as per norms, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the day fixed for compliance of this order till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2011.
