By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is the power of attorney holder of Sri. T.P. Krishnankutty in whose name the Registration Certificate of the vehicle KL-12 A 8962 stands. The insurance policy of the vehicle stands in the name of previous owner Sri. N.O.George. The vehicle met with an accident on 11-4-03 and sustained damages. On intimation of the accident opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the damages. Later opposite party repudiated the claim for the reason that, though ownership of the vehicle was transferred, the policy still stands in the name of previous owner who has no insurable interest in the vehicle. Complainant has spent Rs.1,03,572.29 towards repair of the vehicle and prays for reimbursement of this amount along with interest and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party filed version admitting issuance of package policy to the above vehicle for the period 17-6-02 to 16-6-03. On receiving intimation of accident opposite party issued claim form and also deputed surveyor to assess the damages. On 22-4-03 insured submitted claim form. On verification it was found that the signature in the claim form did not tally with the original signature of the insured. The matter was intimated to the complainant directing him to produce claim form with the original signature of the insured. On 29-4-03 complainant again submitted the claim form. On perusal it was found that the nature and cause of accident narrated in column seven of both the claim forms varied. An investigation was conducted by opposite party and it was found that N.O. George in whose name the policy stood had no insurable interest on the vehicle because at the time of accident the Registration Certificate was already transferred in the name of Sri. T.P.Krishnankutty. Since the policy was not transferred in the name of the new owner/complainant it is contended that opposite party has no contractual liability with complainant and the claim was therefore repudiated. The amount assessed by surveyor is only Rs.37,887/-. There is no deficiency of service and complaint is only to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B5 marked on behalf of opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. Points that arise for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service? <br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> The admitted facts of this case are (i) That the vehicle KL-12 A 8962 was insured with opposite party for the period from 17-6-02 to 16-6-03 under a package policy. (ii) That during the relevant time of accident the Registration Certificate stood in the name of Sri.T.P.Krishnankutty. (iii) That during the time of accident the insurance policy was in the name of previous owner of the vehicle Sri. N.O. George. One of the grounds on which opposite party resists the complaint is that the nature and cause of accident narrated in two claim forms submitted, differ. Ext.B1 and B2 are the two claim forms. On perusal it shows that there is a slight variation in describing the nature of accident. The place and time of accident stated in the forms are exactly the same. Opposite party has conducted an investigation. Even then opposite party has not been able to adduce any evidence that the occurrence of accident is false or that it did not happen in the manner described by complainant. We consider there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant with respect to the question of occurrence of accident. We find that the vehicle sustained damages in the accident that occurred on 11-4-03 at the place Karad-Ellathpurayi. The second ground on which opposite party has repudiated the claim is that although ownership of the vehicle was transferred to Sri.T.P.Krishnankutty, the insurance policy was not transferred and therefore opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant or the previous owner Sri. N.O. George. Admittedly, the policy was taken by Sri. N.O. George. Opposite party has denied claim to the owner under the policy as well as the owner under Registration Certificate. It is held by Hon'ble National Commission in Banowarilal Agarwala Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 NCJ 72 (NC) decided on 30-5-05 R.P.No.2882/03 that “technicality should not come in the way of company honouring its' part of contract.” The position raised by opposite party has at present been settled by the decision laid by Hon'ble Apex Commission in Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. R.P.No.556/02 decided on 22-5-07. It was held “It is highly deplorable on the part of Insurance Company to take undue advantage of the ignorance of the consumers. In 1994, a circular has been issued by General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of India Motor Tariff Regulation. The said regulation reads as under:-<br /> Transfers:-<br /> “On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owners entitlement”. “It appears that in a number of cases Insurance Companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurers or the transferee's of the vehicle because the transferee's were not having any insurable interest”. It was further held, “Because such stand is taken by the Insurance Company in number of cases, Insurance Company is directed to pay punitive costs of Rs.1 lakh under sec. 14(1)(d) for taking unjustified stand in not disclosing the India Motor Tariff Regulation which was applicable in the present case”. Applying the principles in the above decision and as per India motor Tariff Regulation we find that repudiation of claim by opposite party is unjustifiable and amounts to deficiency in service. This point found in favour of complainant.<br /> 6. Point (ii):-<br /> Complainant claims Rs.1,03,572/- towards expenses incurred for repairing the vehicle. Ext.B5 series are the bills produced by complainant before opposite party. These are disputed by opposite party and opposite party relies upon Ext.B4 the survey report for assessment of damages. On perusing Ext.B5 bills it is seen that Rs.42,450/- is claimed by complainant towards labour charges. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that Ext.B5 relate to the actual damages sustained by the vehicle. Ext.B4 is a report prepared by licenced surveyor and we cannot find any ground to disregard it. In Ext.B4 the amount assessed is Rs.37,887/-. It is also stated that complainant is entitled to Rs.2,500/- as towing and lifting charges in addition to the above amount. In our view, complainant is entitled to Rs.40,387/- (Rupees Forty thousand three hundred and eighty seven only) as benefits under the policy. Opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the unjustified repudiation of policy. We consider that allowing interest @ 18% upon the above amount would not only be sufficient compensation to complainant, but will also serve as a message to insurance Companies to stop exploiting the ignorance of public while settling insurance claims. In our view, the act of insurance companies repudiating claim even after imposing punitive costs bythe Apex Commission is highly contumelious for which the increased rate of interest has to be imposed.<br /> 7. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay Rs.40,387/- (Rupees forty thousand three hundred and eighty seven only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till realisation along with cost of Rs.2,500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 4th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1<br /> Ext.A1 : Power of attorney (Original). <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B5<br /> Ext.B1 : Motor Claim Form dated, 22-4-03 submitted by Sri.N.O.George<br /> to the opposite party.<br /> Ext.B2 : Motor Claim Form dated, 29-4-03 submitted by Sri.N.O.George<br /> to the opposite party.<br /> Ext.B3 : Letter dated, 30-6-03 sent by opposite party to Sri.N.O.George.<br /> Ext.B4 : Motor Survey Report dated, 09-5-03 prepared by Ranjish Puthukkudi,<br /> Insurance Surveyor.<br /> Ext.B5 series : Bills (13 Nos.) in respect of vehicle No.KL-12 A 8962.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />