IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.31/2012 (Filed on 03.02.2012)
Between:
1. Tiju Mathew,
S/o. Mathew Philip,
Vedikattil House,
Uthimoodu.P.O.,
Ranni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
2. Harish. P.G.,
S/o. Govindan,
Residing at: Pariyarathu-
Puthen Veedu,
Thukalassery.P.O.,
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta. …. Complainants.
(By Adv. S. Manoj)
And:
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Kayamkulam.
2. Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, P.B.No.37,
Ennakkattil Estate,
M.C. Road, Thiruvalla. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. P.P. Mohammed Mustapha)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:- 1st complainant purchased a Toyota Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL.03M-3006 from the 2nd complainant vide vehicle sale agreement dated 10.08.2010. Thereafter 2nd complainant obtained clearance certificate from the R.T.O on 15.11.2010 for transferring the registration of vehicle in favour of 1st complainant. On 18.12.2010 1st complainant has submitted application for transfer of the vehicle in his name and remitted the required fees at R.T.O, Pathanamthitta. While so on 09.01.2011 a branch of a road side tree fall on the top of the above said vehicle and it got heavily damaged. Matter informed to the Kazhakkuttam Police Station where the accident occurred and they entered the matter in the G.D. At the time of the incident the vehicle had valid insurance with the opposite parties. After the accident, the matter was intimated to the opposite parties and a claim form also submitted by the 2nd complainant. Surveyor of the opposite party has inspected the vehicle and also prepared a report.
3. But the 1st opposite party rejected the claim on the ground that at the time of accident 2nd complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as he had already sold the vehicle to the 1st complainant. According to the complainants the transfer of the vehicle was intimated to the opposite parties who in turn called for the transferred R.C. But the transfer of registration was not effected by the RTO since then and hence transferred R.C was not produced before the opposite parties. It was issued from RTO only on 10.01.2011. The alleged accident occurred during the validity of insurance policy and during the transfer of ownership was in process. Rejection of the claim by the opposite party in the circumstances is illegal which caused great hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting repairing cost of ` 3,43,309 along with compensation of ` 50,000 from the opposite parties.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed common version with the following contentions. Opposite party admit that KL.03M-3006 Innova Car is insured with them. The main contention is that 2nd complainant, who was the insured of the vehicle has no insurable interest at the material time. No application has been submitted to the opposite parties to transfer the insurance certificate to the 1st complainant. As per the M.V. Act, the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer, to the insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance policy. The 1st complainant has contravened the provisions of M.V.Act. No loss is caused to the insurer of the vehicle. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation. Opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A15 and Ext.B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, opposite parties filed argument note and both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The allegation of the complainants is that the 1st complainant purchased a Toyota Innova Car from the 2nd complainant. After obtaining clearance certificate 1st complainant has submitted application for transfer of the vehicle in his name and remitted required fees. While so a branch of a tree fell on the top of the car and it got heavily damaged. At the time of accident the car was validly insured with the opposite party. Insurance claim was lodged but it was repudiated by the insurance company on the finding that the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle as the transfer of ownership of the vehicle was not effected in the R.C or in the policy on the date of accident. But it was not due to any fault of the complainants and hence the repudiation of the claim is illegal and opposite parties are liable to the complainants. Hence complainants filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainants, 1st complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 12 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A12. As per the order in I.A. 94/12, 3 documents were produced by the RTO which are also marked PW1 as A13 to A15. Ext.A1 is the vehicle sale agreement entered between the parties on 08.10.2010. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of cash receipt issued by Motor Vehicle Department on 04.11.2010. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of clearance certificate issued by RTO, Thiruvalla dated 15.11.2010. Ext.A4 is cash receipts issued from Motor Vehicle Department on 18.12.2010. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of registration certificate in respect of vehicle No. KL-03M-3006. Ext.A6 is the G.D extract of Kazhakkuttam Police Station on 09.01.2011. Ext.A7 is the insurance certificate issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A8 is the postal receipt dated 25.01.2011. Ext.A9 is the postal acknowledgment dated 27.01.2011. Ext.A10 series are the Tax Invoices from Nippon motor Corporation Ltd. Ext.A11 is the repudiation letter issued by the opposite parties dated 16.05.2011. Ext.A12 is the photocopy of survey report dated 05.05.2011. Ext.A13 is the copy of clearance certificate issued by Sub Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvalla dated 10.11.2010. Ext.A14 is the certificate issued from RTO, Pathanamthitta dated 13.09.2012. Ext.A15 is the registration particulars of vehicle No.KL-3M-3006.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the 2nd complainant who was the insured of the vehicle had no insurable interest in the said vehicle at the material time. No application has been submitted before the opposite parties to transfer the insurance certificate. The benefit of the policy cannot be claimed by the transferee unless the insurance policy has also been transferred. Hence these opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation.
10. In order to prove the contention of the opposite parties, opposite parties filed 2 documents which are marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the Motor Claim Form submitted by the 2nd complainant. Ext.B2 is the copy of insurance certificate and policy conditions.
11. On the basis of the contentions and argument of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the one and only dispute between the parties is with regard to the insurable interest. According to the 1st complainant, he applied for transfer of registration immediately after obtaining clearance certificate. As per Ext.A3 it is evident that the second complainant got the clearance on 15.11.2010. Thereafter on 18.12.2010 as per Ext.A4, complainant has remitted prescribed fees for transfer of registration. During the process of ownership transfer is going on the accident occurred.
12. As per Ext.A7 and B2 it is clear that the vehicle have a valid insurance coverage during the period from 11.01.2010 to 10.04.2011. But is is not transferred in the name of 1st complainant at the time of accident. As per Sec.157(2) of the M.V. Act, the transferee shall made an application for change of name of the owner in the policy certificate within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the prescribed form to the insurer. The ownership of the vehicle in question is seen transferred to the 1st complainant is on 15.12.2010 and it was issued only on 19.01.2011 as per records, even though he had applied for the same on 18.12.2010. The accident occurred before effecting the registration and during the process is going on. No one can apply for change in insurance certificate without getting the ownership transferred. So the claim is genuine.
13. Moreover, opposite parties contentions are based on Ext.A1 sale agreement entered between the parties on 08.10.2010. It is not a statutory document. On the date of accident the processing for transfer is going on. All relevant documents are at the RTO Office. The alleged accident is not a man made incident it is unexpected and beyond the control of the complainants. The object of the Consumer Protection Act is to give relief to the consumers. It cannot be denied on technical grounds. The dispute raised by the insurance company is technical in nature. In this case at the time of accident transferring process is going on. The delay in getting transfer of ownership is not the laches on the part of the complainant. It is the delay occurred in RTO Office. It is evident from A14 certificate. Unless and until the R.C is transferred nobody is liable to apply for transferring the ownership in the policy. So the contention of opposite parties is not sustainable.
14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we found that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is illegal and is a clear deficiency in service and hence the 1st complainant is entitled to get the policy benefits as per Ext.A7 policy. Therefore, this complaint is allowable with compensation and cost.
15. However, the complainant has not adduced cogent evidence supporting the claim of expenditure for the repairs of the vehicle. They are relying on Ext.A10 dated 10.01.2011 issued by Nippon Motor Corporation. But on a perusal of Ext.A10 it is seen that it is only an estimate prepared immediately after the accident and hence it is not acceptable also in the absence of cash vouchers supporting Ext.A10. Therefore, we are constrained to accept Ext.A12 surveyors report and the surveyors assessment regarding the cost of repairs in which the surveyor assessed it as ` 2,12,950-17. The said assessment is also not opposed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the same.
16. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay ` 2,12,950 (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve thousand nine hundred and fifty only) along with compensation of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with interest @ 8% per annum from today till the realization of the whole amounts.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Tiju Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Vehicle Sale Agreement dated 08.10.2012.
A2 : Photocopy of cash receipt dated 04.11.2010 issued by
Motor Vehicle Department.
A3 : Photocopy of clearance certificate dated 15.11.2010 issued
by RTO, Thiruvalla.
A4 : Cash receipts dated 18.12.2010 issued by Motor Vehicle
Department.
A5 : Photocopy of registration in respect of vehicle No. KL03M-
3006.
A6 : G.D extract of Kazhakkuttam Police Station dated
09.01.2011.
A7 : Insurance Policy Certificate issued by the opposite parties. A8 : Postal receipt
A9 : Postal acknowledgment Card.
A10 series : Tax Invoices from Nippon Motor Corporation Ltd. A11 : Repudiation letter dated 16.05.2011issued by the opposite
parties.
A12 : Photocopy of survey report dated 05.05.2011.
A13 : Copy of clearance certificate issued on 10.11.2010.
A14 : Certificate dated 13.09.2012 issued from RTO,
Pathanamthitta.
A15 : Registration particulars in respect of vehicle No. KL03-M-
3006.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Motor Claim Form submitted by the 2nd complainant
B2 : Policy Certificate and conditions.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Tiju Mathew, Vedikattil House, Uthimoodu.P.O.,
Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Harish. P.G., Pariyarathu Puthen Veedu,
Thukalassery.P.O., Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Kayamkulam.
(4) Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, P.B.No.37, Ennakkattil Estate,
M.C. Road, Thiruvalla.
(5) The Stock File.
