DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3^rd   day of May, 2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :   Smt. Vidya A., Member             

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 02/11/2022   

              CC/215/2022

Vishnu Sankar M.P.,

S/o.Pradeep.M.D.,

Menoth House, Kakkathod,

Elappully, Palakkad – 678 622                                               -           Complainant

(By Adv. K.S. Namratha)

                                                                                      Vs

1. SML Finance Ltd.,

Branch Office,

Mepparambu, Pirayiri, Palakkad

Rep.by its Branch Manager

2. SML Finance Ltd.,

Regd.Office, Bethany Complex,

Thrissur Road, Kunnamkulam Village,

Thalappilli Taluk, Thrissur – 680 503

Rep. by its Manager

3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
   Divisional Office – I, Thrissur – Park House,

Round North, Thrissur – 680 021

Rep. by its Manager.

4. I. Lathif,

Proprietor,

IK Motors, 169/2B,

Madukarai Market Road,

Phase II, Industrial Estate Post,

Coimbatore, Tamilnadu – 21                                   -         Opposite parties

(OPs  1, 2 and 4 are exparte

        OP 3 by Adv. T. Giri.)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complaint purchased a second-hand car from OPs 1 & 2 on hire purchase scheme. The vehicle was insured with OP3. At the time of purchase the OPs had charged Rs.8,000/- from the complainant for carrying out transfer of ownership and replacing the name of beneficiary under the insurance policy. The car met with an accident. The 3^rd OP refused to honour the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no insurable interest. The vehicle was repaired in the workshop of 4^th O.P. The 1^st and 2^nd O.P.s had taken the complainant for a ride inspite of availing amounts for transferring of registration and insurance coverage in the name of the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.  
2. O.P.s 1 and 2 failed to file version with in the statutory period and were set ex-parte. O.P.4 also remained ex-parte.
3. O.P.3 filed a detailed version stating that the accident occurred on 04/03/2020. As on the date of accident, insurance stood in the name of one Mr. Basheer, who was the prior owner of the car. Registration of the car was transferred in the name of the complainant only on 12/03/2020. Insurance policy was transferred in the name of complainant on 23/3/2020. As the complainant did not have an insurable interest, his claim was closed as ‘no claim’.
4. Upon a studied consideration of the pleadings and   counter pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case insurance cover applies to the vehicle of complainant?
2. Whether the complainant had insurable interest in the vehicle on 4/3/2020?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Any other reliefs?

5.          (i)      Evidence of complainant  comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to  A3.   Marking of Ext. A1, a photocopy of a screenshot of certificate of registration, was objected to on the ground that it is the photocopy of a screenshot. Since the same document is marked by the 3^rd O.P. OP’s objection is over-ruled.  Marking of Ext.A2 & 3 are objected on the ground they are photocopies.  

                              Since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any plea that the said documents were forged or concocted, these objections are over-ruled.

(ii)     OP3 filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B5.  Marking of all documents are objected to on the ground they are photocopies. This objection is over ruled for the ground stated supra.

            Issue Nos.1& 2

6.         For the sake of convenience these two issues can be considered together.

7.         Complainant’s case is that he took possession of the vehicle on 29/11/2019 under hire purchase agreement entered into between the complainant and OPs 1 & 2. At the time of execution of the agreement, the 1^st OP had made the complainant believe that they would take out all necessary actions requisite form transferring the details of ownership with the RTO and the name of the beneficiary in the insurance policy and availed Rs. 8,000/-towards processing charges to that extent.  The car met with an accident on 4/3/2020. OP3 failed to honour the complainant’s claim on the ground that  on the date of accident, the complainant was not having an insurable interest.

8.         Ext.A1 is the certificate of registration. Date of effect of registration of ownership of the car in the name of the complainant is shown as 12/3/2020. Ext.A2 is the private car package policy issued in favour of one Basheer. Complainant’s case is that the car was insured on the date of accident. It is true that there was an insurance coverage on the date of accident. But fact remains that what the insurance company had undertook was indemnification of the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured from various loss or damage, as can be seen in Section 1 of Ext.B1 policy terms and conditions.

            Thus, it is clear that two factors have to converge for the 3^rd OP to honour the claim.

            1) the claimant must be the person shown as insured in the policy documents.

            2) the vehicle must be the one for which the insured had paid the premium.

            Here, only part of the insurance agreement is satisfied i.e. the vehicle is the same. But the insured are two entirely different persons.

9.         Resultantly we hold that the complainant did not have an insurable interest over the car as on the date of accident.

             Issue No. 3

10.       Complainant has oft repeated that the 1^st & 2^nd OPs had availed an amount of Rs.8,000/- and assured him that they would carry out the registration work and would effect transfer of insurance policy. Pleadings apart, no evidence is forthcoming to cast a liability upon the 1^st & 2^nd OPs on the ground of deficiency in service.  

11.       Thus, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2 as well.  

Issue Nos. 4&5

12.       Consequently, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

13.       With the aforesaid observations and findings, this complaint is dismissed.

14.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd   day of May, 2024.         

                             Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member         

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member        

   APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -  Copy  of certificate of registration

Ext.A2  – Copy of policy certificate  

Ext.A3 -   Copy of arbitration petition

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1  -  Copy of  policy certificate and terms and conditions of policy in the name of

                 Mr. Basheer

Ext.B2   - Copy of  policy certificate in the name of Vishnusankar

Ext.B3    - Copy of certificate of registration

Ext.B4 – Copy of  motor claim form

Ext.B5 – Copy of  letter of repudiation

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:   Nil   

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.