By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from N.V. Saleem for valid consideration and the registration Certificate of the vehicle was transferred to the name of complainant with effect from 18-6-2004. The fact of transfer was intimated to opposite party immediately after the transfer and that complainant had applied in prescribed form to opposite party for transfer of the insurance certificate to her name. Opposite party informed the complainant that insurance certificate will be issued to her without any delay. While so, on the midnight of 5^th August, 2004, the motor cycle was stolen from the porch of complainant's house. The husband of complainant filed a complaint regarding theft of vehicle before vazhakkad Police Station and a crime No.131/04 u/s 379 IPC was registered. Along with copy of First Information Report complainant preferred claim to opposite party on total loss basis. Later opposite party repudiated the claim contending that the claim cannot be entertained as the complainant has violated the provisions of Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Complainant then issued a lawyer notice demanding to settle the claim. In reply opposite party informed their unwillingness to compensate the complainant. Complainant alleges that the repudiation is on unsustainable grounds and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting that the vehicle was insured with opposite party and the policy was in effect from 03-5-2004 till 02-5-2005. It is submitted that the policy stands in the name of Mr.N.V. Saleem who was the Registration Certificate owner of the vehicle while issuing the policy. That transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of complainant was not intimated to opposite party. That opposite party came to know about the transfer only on 17-8-2004 when the claim was preferred. Opposite party denies that complainant had intimated the transfer and had applied in prescribed form for transfer of insurance certificate to her name. That there is a delay of seven days in informing the incident of theft to police. That complainant did not produce the final report of the police, or the original documents of the vehicle. Without verifying the original documents and without getting the final report the claim cannot be settled. That claim was repudiated because opposite party has no contractual relationship with complainant since she did not make necessary changes in the insurance certificate incorporating the factum of transfer. That complainant being the transferee, has to apply for necessary changes in the Certificate within 14 days from the date of transfer. That complainant has not complied with this provision and has violated Sec.157 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. That opposite party does not admit the value of the motor cycle to be Rs.28,000/- as claimed in the petition. That opposite party is not liable to pay compensation and complaint is only to be dismissed.

3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 to A7 marked for complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

The main ground raised by opposite party in the counter affidavit for repudiating the claim is that complainant did not intimate opposite party the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to her name. That on the relevant date of incident the Registration Certificate stood in the name of complainant while the Insurance Certificate was still in the name of the previous owner N.V. Saleem. That as per Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act the transferee has to apply for the transfer of the insurance in the prescribed form to the insurer within 14 days of the date of transfer. That complainant never approached opposite party with an application to transfer and therefore there is no privity of contract with complainant.

6. It is the case of complainant the registration certificate of the vehicle was transferred to her name on 18-6-2004. She affirms that immediately she had intimated opposite party regarding the transfer of ownership and had applied to opposite party in prescribed form to make necessary changes for transfer of insurance certificate. Ext.B1 is the insurance certificate. It stands in the name of N.V. Saleem the previous owner. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of Registration Certificate which shows that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant with effect from 18-6-2004. Ext.A7 is the notice issued by complainant through her lawyer to opposite party. It is seen stated in Ext.A7 also that complainant had applied for transfer of insurance certificate in prescribed form. The affirmation in the affidavit is thus supported by consistent pleadings and Ext.A7. The consistency in the contention would indicate that there is a ring of truth in her statement. We do not find any reason to disbelieve this sworn affirmation of complainant. Further opposite party has not opted to challenge this contention by cross examining the complainant. We therefore hold that complainant had applied for effecting transfer of insurance certificate to her name. It is held in 2008 CTJ 175 (CP) NCDRC., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. capt. Ajay Singh Yadav and another, that “if a request is made to an insurance company for transfer of the insurance policy to the person buying the vehicle within the prescribed period of 14 days from the date of sale of the vehicle, there is deficiency in service if the Insurance Company does not act upon t he request within a reasonable period of time.”

7. As per the decision rendered by Apex Commission, even if the policy certificate stands in the name of previous owner, the company is liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle is whose name the registration certificate stands, during the period of validity of policy. In Sri.Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance R.P.No.556/02, 2007 (4) CPJ 289 (NC) and National Insurance Co. Vs. Subash Chand Kataria 2008(2) CPJ 324 (NC) “it is held by Apex Commission that as per circular issued by General Insurance Company, on transfer of vehicle, benefits under policy in force, automatically accrue to the new owner”. Applying the principles laid in the above decisions we hold that the act of opposite party in repudiating the claim of complainant is on unjustifiable grounds and amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service.

8. Point (ii):-

Complainant claims Rs.28,000/- as benefits under the policy on a total loss basis along with interest and for Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and hardships. Ext.A3 is the First Information Report and Ext.A5 is the refer report issued by police stating that the vehicle is undetectable. These documents prove that the vehicle is lost by theft. Therefore opposite party is liable to settle the claim on a total loss basis. In Ext.B1 the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.28,000/-. Complainant is definitely entitled to this amount. She is also to be compensated for the deficiency and for the mental agony and hardships suffered by her. In our view interest @ 12% upon the above amount would not only be sufficient compensation to the complainant, but will also serve to deter opposite party from denying insurance claim to consumers taking undue advantage of their helplessness and ignorance.

9. In the result we allow this complaint and order opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.28,000/-(Rupees Twenty Eight thousand only) along with interest @ 12% from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

Dated this 24th day of December, 2008.

Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A7

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Registration Certificate in respect of vehicle

No.KL10-L 6114

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Certificate-cum-policy schedule in respect of

vehicle No.KL10-L 6114

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the request with First Information Report dated,

17-8-2004 from complainant to opposite party.

Ext.A4 : Repudiation letter dated, 10-9-2004 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A5 : Refer report issued by Vazhakkad Police Station to complainant's Husband.

Ext.A6 : Reply notice dated, 30-10-2004 by opposite party's counsel to

complainant's counsel.

Ext.A7 : Carbon copy of the Lawyer notice dated, 08-10-2004 issued by

complainant's counsel to opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3

Ext.B1 : True copy of Insurance certificate.

Ext.B2 : Lawyer notice dated, 08-10-2004 issued by complainant's counsel

to opposite party.

Ext.B3 : Reply notice dated, 30-10-2004 by opposite party's counsel to

complainant's counsel.

Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER