BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the day of 29th day of October 2011 Filed on : 07/04/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 195/2011
Between
Prasanna Kumari K, : Complainant
24/740 Sunil Vihar, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Mulavelickal road, Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Konthuruthy P.O., Thevara,
Kochi-682 013.
Rep. by her Power of Attorney
Holder P.U. Anish,
Pallichankudiyil house,
Mulavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha.
And
M/s. Reliance General Insurance, : Opposite party
2nd Floor, Vishnu Building, (By Adv. Saji Isaac K.J., 311
K.P. Vallon road, Kadavanthra, H.B. flats, Panampilly Nagar, Koc
Kochi. Kochi-36)
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Briefs facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg. No. KLBE-6788 was insured with the opposite party. While so the vehicle met with an accident in Tamilnadu on 12-11-2010. The vehicle was totally damaged and it was brought to Datum Motors, Muvattupuzha for repairs. But on inspection, it was found that the vehicle is beyond repairs. The claim was lodged with the opposite party. But it was repudiated by the opposite party by their letter dated 25-03-2011 stating that the vehicle was sold to Mr. Abdul Riza Sulaiman on 08-11-2008 and the complainant is not having any pecuniar loss and hence no insurable interest. The reason given for repudiation is not correct and hence unsustainable. Though the complainant entered into agreement with Mr. Abdul Riaz Sulaiman for sale of the vehicle, the sale was not concluded. The vehicle remained in complainant’s name and possession. The complainant is the owner and insured of the vehicle. The complainant is entitled for the insured value shown in the policy Rs. 1,78,500/- along with interest. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party.
The complainant had sold the vehicle to one Abdul Riaz Sulaiman and the possession of the vehicle was handed over to him. Hence the complainant does not have any insurable interest in the vehicle and hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant only according to the terms and conditions of the policy provided.
3. The complainant and the opposite party represented through counsel. The complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. We have heard the respective counsel.
4. The points for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim amount from the opposite party?
ii. Compensation and costs if any
5. Points Nos i&ii. No dispute with regard to the insurance policy. The reason for repudiation is that at the time of accident the complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle. The opposite party contented that the vehicle of the complainant has been transferred to one Mr. Abdul Riaz Sulaiman. Ext. A1 is the copy of the certificate of registration. Ext. A2 is the copy of policy certificate for the period of 29/05/2010 to 25/05/2011 and Ext. A3 is the copy of the repudiation letter. On a perusal of those documents it is evident that the registration and the policy are in the name of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pushpa @ Leela & ors Vs. Shakuntala & ors ( 2011 SAR (Civil 149). The decision was rendered under the Motor Vehicle Act Sec. 166 in which it was held that so long as the name of the earlier owner continues in RTO reads as the owner of the vehicle was equally liable to make payment of compensation amount. Further it was held that 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. In view of the above decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance claim amount from the opposite party. Neither party took steps to produce the survey report before the Forum. As such there is no evidence to quantify the damages sustained by the vehicle or the quantum of the insurance amount as claimed by the complainant. In the circumstances stated above we are only to hold that the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case we are not ordering any compensation and costs of the proceedings.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay the insurance claim of the complainant as per norms.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2011.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of certificate of registration
A2 : Copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 25-03-2011
Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil
