IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 65/2011 (Filed on 03.03.2011)
Between:
Rakesh. P.R., aged 24,
S/o Rajendran P.C.,
Pulakulanjiyil House,
Elavumthitta P.O.
Mezhuveli Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk.
(By Adv. V.R. Soji) … Complainant.
And:
1. Reliance General Insurance,
2md Floor, Mashreq Trade Centre,
Opposite Municipal Office,
Calicut Road, Perinthalmanna,
Malappuram District represented
By its Branch Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance,
Near Andhra Bank,
Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(By Adv. Agi Joseph)
3. Chacko Thomas,
Kayyalathu House,
Thumpamon Thazham P.O.,
Elavumthitta, Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows: Complainant purchased a Mahindra Scorpio Van on 21.04.2010 from the 3rd opposite party. After the purchase of the vehicle, complainant transferred all the R.T particulars in his name and thereafter on 03.05.2010 informed 1st opposite party to transfer the insurance policy of the said vehicle in his name. But on 21.05.2010 the said vehicle met with an accident at Kilimanoor and sustained heavy damage. The Kilimanoor police registered a crime. Complainant brought the vehicle to Kuravakkattu Auto Engineering Works, Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta for repairs. The said vehicle was insured with the 1st opposite party and the policy was valid from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. The opposite parties 1 and 2 conducted a spot inspection and investigation with regard to the accident. The complainant repaired the vehicle and contacted the opposite parties for clearance of the amount. But opposite parties deferred the payment of policy amount on frivolous grounds. Therefore complainant compelled to pay ` 1,54,673.
3. On 22.09.2010 3rd opposite party intimated the complainant that he has received a notice from the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the same has handed over to complainant. From the notice it is understood that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred without the prior knowledge of the insurance company and the same was the reason for repudiation of the claim. Complainant sent a legal notice to the 1st opposite party on 20.09.2010, but they have not given a reply to the same. On 20.08.2010 complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and enquired about the transfer of policy in his favour. The 2nd opposite party directed to remit Rs.60 for the purpose. The complainant paid the said amount. But till this time the policy has not transferred in favour of the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting `1,54,673 with 12% interest and a compensation of ` 25,000 and cost.
4. The first and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version and 3rd opposite party has not yet appeared and declared as exparte.
5. According to opposite parties 1 and 2, complainant has not approached them for transfer the policy in his name. A policy can be transferred to another person only after showing the ownership of his vehicle and non-objection from the insured after remitting ` 50 with a new proposal form. The request and payment shall be done within 14 days from the date of transfer ownership of the vehicle. The allegation that the said request was sent to the 1st opposite party by under certificate of posting is not a valid legal document and has no presumption under law.
6. According to them as per GR 17 transfers is in case of package policies, transfer of the own damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on report of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. The old certificate of insurance for the vehicle is required to be surrendered and a fee of ` 50 is to be collected for issue of fresh certificate in the name of the transferee. If for any reason the old certificate of insurance cannot be surrendered, a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new certificate of insurance is issued. Apart from GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff, IRDA has also clarified about the automatic transfer of policy. Automatic transfer is effected with regard to liability only policy and is not applicable to own damage clause of package policy. The GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff is applicable to all accidents occurred from 01.07.2002. Hence insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to any person if the policy is not in the name of the person even if he holds the ownership of the vehicle at the time of accident.
7. Complainant has not paid ` 1,54,673 as stated in the complaint. Under the guise of the accident complainant has repaired the vehicle and replaced old parts of the vehicle which has not sustained any damage. Opposite parties appointed a surveyor and he assessed the actual damage caused to the vehicle in the accident. The reason for repudiation is legally valid and sustainable. These opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant. Since the complainant has no insurable interest on the date of accident, there is no contract between the opposite parties and complainant. Hence they were not liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant has no right for issuing a legal notice for claiming an untenable claim. The complainant has not made claim as stipulated by IRDA and Reliance General Insurance Company. Hence the opposite parties cannot change the policy of another person from the insured during the relevant period. Complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties and is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service on their part. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
8. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
9. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and PW2 and marked Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
10. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 is the copy of the request to the 1st opposite party dated 03.05.2010. Ext.A2 is the UCP dated 03.05.2010. Ext.A3 series are the copies of the lawyers notice to the 1st opposite party dated 20.09.2010. Ext.A4 series are the postal receipts dated 20.09.2010. Ext.A5 series are the two acknowledgment cards. Ext.A6 is the copy of bill issued by Kuruvakkattu Auto Engineering Works. Ext.A7 is the copy of bill for ` 48,000 issued by Kuruvakkattu Auto Engineering Works. Ext.A8 series are the copies of two bills issued by A.K.S Crane & Recovery Service.
11. In order to prove the opposite parties case, they filed one document which is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the General Regulation of India Motor Tariff.
12. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that he purchased a vehicle and transferred all the R.T particulars in his name. On 03.04.2010 he informed 1st opposite party to transfer the insurance policy in his name. While so on 21.05.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident and complainant incurred ` 1,54,676 for repairing. But opposite parties 1 and 2 repudiated the claim even though the policy was in force.
13. Opposite parties contention is that complainant has not transferred the policy from the previous owner. A policy can be transferred to another person only after showing the ownership of the vehicle and non-objection from the insured and on remitting ` 50 with a new proposal form. The request and payment shall be done within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Complainant has not complied the said formality thereby violated the terms and conditions as stated in GR 17. Therefore they repudiated the claim of complainant.
14. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the validity of policy and accident. The only dispute is that at the time of accident the complainant has not transferred the policy from the previous owner. Complainant put forward Ext.A1 and A2, claiming the request made to 1st opposite party for transferring the policy. But opposite parties vehemently objected the validity of Ext.A1 and A2. But on a perusal of Ext.A1, it does not reveal that complainant enclosed all the requisite formalities such as consent of the transferor, old certificate of insurance of the vehicle and requisite fees of `50 for transfer the policy in his name. More over complainant has case that he had done all the formalities for the transfer of the policy and opposite parties can transfer the policy on the basis of Ext.A1. Therefore the contention based on Ext.A1 and A2 is not sustainable.
15. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff is applicable to all accidents occurred from 01.07.2002 and GR 10 & 15 of the previous tariff is not applicable from 01.07.2002. Therefore GR 17 is applicable in this case.
16. The old GR 10 reads as follows:- “on transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner if this transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the bonus or subjected to malus already shown on the policy, the recovery of the differences between this entitlement (if any) and that shown on the policy shall be waived till the expiry of the policy. However on expiry and/or termination of the existing policy the transferee will be eligible for bonus or subjected to malus as per his own entitlement”.
17. A perusal of provisions of GR 17 of the India Motor Tariff would also make it clear that policy (3rd party insurance) would get automatically transferred on transfer of ownership of the vehicle. But there cannot be any such transfer of the policy with respect to comprehensive policy or package policy. This position is also confirmed by our own Hon’ble CDRC in a case decided by this Forum in Appeal No.55/08 (Sheebi Joseph Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Branch Thiruvalla) reported in CDJ 2010 KER, SCDRC 587 and in another case appeal No.4/2010 reported in CDJ 2010 KER SCDRC 410 (United India Insurance Co. Vs. Suneer Parambadom).
18. From the overall facts and circumstances and of observation and findings and based on the decisions of the Hon’ble CDRC we are of the view that as per GR17, at the time of accident there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore they are not liable to indemnify the complainant. Hence we cannot find any deficiency of service and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Rakesh. P.R.
PW2 : V.S. Sivankutty.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the request dated 03.05.2010 sent by the
complainant to the 1st opposite party.
A2 : Copy of UCP dated 03.05.2010 sent by the complaint to the second
opposite party.
A3, A3(a) :Photocopy of the lawyers notice dated 20.09.2010 issued to the 1st
and second opposite party.
A4, A4(a) : Postal receipts of Exts. A3 and A3(a).
A5, A5(a) : Postal acknowledgment cards of Exts. A3 and A3(a).
A6 : Photocopy of bill dated 06.09.2010 issued by Kuruvakkattu Auto
Engineering Works.
A7 : Photocopy of bill dated 18.09.2010 for Rs.48,000 issued by
Kuruvakkattu Auto Engineering Works.
A8, A8(a) :Photocopies of bills issued by A.K.S Crane & Recovery
Service, Kazhakkuttam, Thiruvananthapuram.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of India Motor Tariff.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Rakesh. P.R., Pulakulanjiyil House, Elavumthitta P.O.
Mezhuveli Village, Kozhencherry Taluk.
(2) Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance, 2nd Floor, Mashreq Trade Centre, Opposite Municipal Office, Calicut Road,
Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District.
(3) Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance, Near Andhra
Bank, Pathanamthitta P.O.
(4) Chacko Thomas, Kayyalathu House, Thumpamon Thazham P.O.,Elavumthitta, Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
