DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 20th day of April, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member <br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.87/2006<br /> 1. Parijathan.K,<br /> S/o.Krishnan,<br /> 4/343, Kottukode,<br /> Verkoli.P.O, Palakkad. <br /> <br /> 2.Noushad.M,<br /> S/o.Mohammed,<br /> 10/293, Upasana Nagar,<br /> Pirayiri, Palakkad - Complainants <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> East Fort Building, <br /> Palakkad - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> 1st complainant herein had purchased a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-9 L7867 from the 2nd complainant. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party as per policy No.570705/31/04/6200014453 valid from 11.2.2005 to 10.2.2006. Policy was not transferred to the 1st complainant. On 22.1.2006 at about 1.30 a.m., an unexpected fire broke out in attached shed attached to 1st complainant residential house. The said motor bike was kept inside the shed. Upon the said incident the whole vehicle was completely burnt and damaged. The incident was informed to Chittur Police Station and the Police <br /> : 2 :<br /> had registered an FIR upon it as Crime No.28. The 1st complainant as owner of the vehicle and also an agent of the 2nd complainant had approached the <br /> opposite party and informed about the said incident. Subsequently upon the information given by the opposite party, the 1st complainant approached Mr.A.M.Sherif for a detailed survey. He had given a valuation of Rs.27,304/- as an estimated expenses for repair and Rs.1,000/- as labour charges. 1st complainant had also approached G.S.Motors, Chittur, the authorised service centre of Yamaha and had given a quotation of Rs.50,089/-. Both the complainants approached opposite party with all the necessary documents including FIR, estimate and survey report. The opposite party informed that the claim will be satisfied after necessary paper works. But the opposite party had repudiated their claim for no reasons. The complainants had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 24.4.06 directing them to satisfy their claim of Rs.28,304/-, Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.250/- for costs of notice. Opposite party had sent a reply notice stating that since the policy is not transferred in the name of the 1st complainant there is no contractual liability with him, and they are only liable to the 2nd complainant who is the insured as per the policy. It was also stated that the 2nd complainant has not intimated about the incident and no papers were submitted before them. The complainants allege that attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service since the opposite party has received premium for the said vehicle. Hence they approached before the forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to satisfy the claim of Rs.28,304/- along with amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses. <br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite party for their appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending the followings. This complaint is not maintainable and the case <br /> : 3 :<br /> made out by the complainant with malafide intention to defraud the insurance company. It was admitted that the 2nd complainant Mr.Noushad, the RC owner <br /> has insured his motor cycle bearing No.KL-9 L7867 and obtained a policy No.570705/31/04/6200014453 for a period from 11.2.2005 to 10.2.2006. There is no contract with the 1st complainant, Mr.Parijathan, S/o.Krishnan and hence the 1st complainant is total stranger to the opposite party. If the 1st complainant is the owner of the vehicle the policy should have been transferred to his name. In this case neither the 2nd complainant nor the 1st complainant informed the opposite party about such transfer of ownership. It is a violation of the policy condition and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The 1st complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd complainant was not having insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident. The 2nd complainant had not moved any application for claim before this opposite party. And no claim form is admitted. Opposite party is not having any information about the alleged accident. For own damages insured has to inform the insurer immediately on accident and has to obtain claim form from the company. The practice is that immediately on receipt of the claim form the insurance company will depute an insurance surveyor to conduct the loss/damages if any. This is the procedure and practice as far as the own damage insurance settlement is concerned. The 1st complainant has no locus standi to appoint a surveyor and conduct the survey for the loss and claim from the opposite party. No direction or instruction have been given either to the complainants to contact any surveyor for conducting survey and assess the loss. Opposite party further states that there is no privity of contract with alleged purchaser/1st complainant with the opposite party. 2nd complainant had not issued any demand notice to raise any deficiency of service. It was further submitted that there is no survey and valuation from the surveyor. The quotation from G.S.Motors are all fabricated documents, the amount shown as <br /> : 4 :<br /> Rs.27,334/- as expenses and repair charges of Rs.1,000/- are totally denied by the opposite party. The amount quoted by G.S.Motors of Rs.58,089/- is an <br /> imaginary figure. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs.<br /> <br /> Complainants as well as opposite party filed proof affidavits to substantiate their respective contentions. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.<br /> <br /> The opposite party admitted that the vehicle was insured with the 1st opposite party. The 2nd petitioner insured the alleged vehicle and the opposite party has issued the policy to him. The 2nd complainant never contacted the opposite party for the claim. Whereas the 1st complainant stated that he has purchased the alleged vehicle from the 2nd complainant. If that is so, either the 1st or 2nd complainant should have informed the opposite party regarding the transfer. As far as the opposite party is concerned 1st complainant is totally a stranger and there is no such policy found in the name of 1st complainant. For own damages it is necessary to get endorsed in the policy regarding the transfer of ownership of vehicle if taken place. According to the opposite party there was no contract to the 1st complainant. The documents produced by the complainant does not show any acknowledgement with regard to submission of claim form to the opposite party and repudiation of claim form by them. In the absence of the said document we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> In the above circumstances the case of the complainant cannot be <br /> : 5 :<br /> entertained. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2007 <br /> <br /> Member (Sd) <br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Attested copy of FIR<br /> Ext.A2 – Survey report (with objection)<br /> Ext.A3 – Quotation by G.S.Motors (with objection subject to proof)<br /> Ext.A4 – Copy of lawyer notice<br /> Ext.A5 – Reply notice<br /> Ext.A6 – Insurance policy (original)<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 – Policy with terms and condition