IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of August, 2016
Filed on 21.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.90/2015
Between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Smt. Lilly, W/o Josy The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kareethara, Ezhupunna South P.O. Represented by its Branch Manager
Vallethodu, Cherthala, Alappuzha Alappuzha
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
- Jins, S/o Josy -do-
- Joythsana, D/o Josy -do-
(By Adv. P.S. Anaghan)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainants is as follows:-
Complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Josy, who was the owner of vehicle No. KL-27B- 6783. Opposite party issued a policy No. 442401/31/2013/8099 in favour of the prior owner during the period from 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013. The policy covers personal accident to owner-cum-driver. On 24.3.2013 the first complainant’s husband who was driving the vehicle met with an accident and died at 7.45 p.m. The complainants claimed for the insurance benefits, but it was repudiated by the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party issued a policy to the vehicle No. KL27B-6183 in the name of one Mr. Anilkumar for the period from 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013. The policy covers personal accident to owner-cum-driver. On a perusal of the copy of RC book it is revealed that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Josy on 7.3.2013 and the policy was not transferred hence there was no privity of contract by the opposite party with the deceased Josy. Hence the complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. This was intimated to the complainants on 10.3.2014. The allegation that the driver or paid driver are entitled to get compensation as per policy is an absolute false hood instead owner driver is specifically stated in the policy. All other allegations against the above facts are not correct and hence denied. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the
opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party issued a policy in the name of Mr. Anilkumar for the period from 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013. It is also an admitted fact that the policy covers personal accident to owner-cum-driver. According to the complainant due to the ignorance of her husband, he had remitted the premium amount in the name of the prior owner. According to the opposite party since the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant’s husband on 7.3.2013 and the policy was not transferred, there was no privity of contract by the opposite party with the deceased Josy. In a Judgment dated 25.1.2016 by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.579/14 with regard to the same issue, it is stated that, “there is no merit in the said contention of the opposite party. Section 157(1) and Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly provides that in the case of the transfer of a vehicle, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have transferred in favour of the transferee. ” In a decision reported in 2016(2) KHC 351 (DB) Hon’ble Kerala High Court opined that once vehicle is transferred there is a deemed transfer of policy of insurance in the name of the transferee and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured or even the transferee by virtue of the deeming provision. In the instant case, it is clear from the R.C. book that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Josy on 07.03.2013. The accident was on 24.3.2013. Hence the opposite party is not entitled to contend that they are not liable to indemnify the transferee. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.579/14, we are of opinion that opposite party is liable to indemnify the transferee Mr. Josy who was died on 24.3.2013. As per the Ext.A1 policy certificate issued by the opposite party, the personal accident coverage u/s III for owner-cum driver is Rs.2 lakhs. The denial on the part of the opposite party in satisfying the claim of the complainants amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization to the complainants. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. Since the primary relief is granted, there is no order as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Lilly (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the policy
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 10.3.2014
Ext.A3 - Attested copy of the Legal heir certificate
Ext.A4 - Copy of the First Information Report
Ext.A5 - Copy of the Postmortem Certificate
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Subha. G. Panicker (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Policy Schedule
Ext.B2 - Commercial Vehicle Package Policy conditions
Ext.B3 - Motor Claim Form
Ext.B4 - Application dated 7.4.2014
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
