BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 28/03/2009

Date of Order : 31/12/2010

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 196/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is the registered owner of the Bajaj Pulsor Motorcycle bearing Registration No. 44/132. While so, between 11 P.M. on 24-06-2008 and 2 A.M. on 25-06-2008 some miscreants tried to destroy the vehicle by using fire. Thereby, the vehicle was completely damaged and suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 45,000/-. At the time of the incident, the vehicle was kept in the car porch of one Mr. Jolly. Subsequently, a claim was lodged with the opposite party. But it was repudiated by them by their letter dated 14-11-2008. The reason given for repudiation is that the complainant has no physical possession of the vehicle and so no insurable interest in the vehicle. The reason given for repudiation is absolutely baseless. The entire possession of the vehicle was not handed over to anybody at the time of accident. Moreover, the ownership and the insurance policy were in the name of the complainant. The complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, the opposite party is liable to settle the claim. The refusal to do so amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs. 45,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the hardships and financial losses suffered by him due to the repudiation of the claim. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party :

The vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-44/132 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 06-07-2007 to 05-07-2008 in favour of the complainant. The complainant has sold the vehicle to Mr. Jolly, S/o. Kurian, Palamoottil House, Kirampara Kara, Kothamangalam Village by a sale agreement dated 25-04-2008. Since hypothecation agreement was in force between the complainant and Bajaj Auto Finance, the registration certification and hypothecation agreement could never have been done in favour of the transferee. As per the police records, the damage of the vehicle took place during the night time between 11 P.M. on 24-06-2008 and 2 A.M. on 25-06-2008. In consequence of the claim application, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 22,638/-. The complainant is not entitled to get claim amount, since he is not the actual owner of the vehicle. The opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Exts. B1 to B7 were marked on their side. The opposite party filed argument note. Heard both sides.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim from the opposite party?

2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant is the registered owner and insured of the vehicle thereby, he has got insurance interest over the vehicle and is entitled to get insurance claim from the opposite party. The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant Bhujangrao Jogdand II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC).

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle on the date of alleged accident, since the vehicle had been transferred in favour of Mr. Jolly.

7. Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration. No. KL-44/132 and is the insured of the same for the period from 06-07-2007 to 05-07-2008 evident from Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. B1 goes to show that on 25-04-2008, the complainant sold the vehicle to Mr Jolly, S/o. Kurian, Palamoottil House, Punnekkadu Kara, Keerampara Village. It is pertinent to note that after the incident the said Jolly lodged Ext. B2 first information statement before the S.I. of Police, Kothamangalam claiming that he is the owner in possession of the vehicle. Moreover, the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam released the vehicle to the said Jolly after the seizure by the police evident from Ext. B3.

8. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the above referred case held that since there was no privity of contract between the registered owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle, the registered owner has no insurable interest over the vehicle. The law settled by the Hon'ble National Commission would seem to have no settled application in this case.

9. In view of the above, we hold that the complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle in question and he is not entitled for any insurance claim from the opposite party. The repudiation of the insurance claim by the opposite party is legal and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party

10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2010.

Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========