THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 83/2014
JUDGMENT DATED. 30/11//2016
(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 168/2007 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha )
PRESENT:-
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SRI.K.CHANDRA DAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd,
2nd Floor Chicago Plaza, Rajaji Road,
Kochi, Represented by its General Manager.
(By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)
V/S
RESPONDENTS :
- Thankachan, S/o. Sebastian,
Panackal, Mararikkulam North P.O,
(By Adv. C.K. Rajendran )
- I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd, 2nd Floor, Skyline citadel,
Kanjikuzhi, Kottayam, represented by its Manager.
(2)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A.RADHA : MEMBER
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in CC.No.168/2007 the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
2. The complainant purchased Toyota Innova vehicle and a loan was availed from the first opposite party. The vehicle was purchased from one Mr. Rajamoni for an amount of Rs. 7,30,000 on 14/11/2006 and the vehicle was hypothecated with the first opposite party. In order to endorse the hypothecation the RC particulars and all other documents were handed over to the first opposite party. Thereafter on completion of hypothecation process the first opposite party returned the documents after changing the name in R.C.Book on 05-02-2007. The documents were received by the complainant on 07-02-2007. Subsequently an accident took place on 08-02-2007 and the vehicle got damaged and for claiming insurance the complainant approached the second opposite party and thereafter on 15-02-2007 the complainant changed the insurance policy to his name . On claiming the insurance policy the second opposite party had not taken any steps to settle the claim . The complainant had to spend around Rs. 2,55,000/- to
(3)
repair the vehicle. The complainant is entitled for the repairing charges under the insurance policy and filed this complaint to recover the expense incurred for repairing and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with a cost of proceedings.
3. The first opposite party filed version contending that the relationship between the complainant and first opposite party is that of a debtor and creditor and does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ Under 2 (d) of the CP act. It is admitted that the complainant availed used car auto loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- for the purchase of Toyota Innova by executing a loan cum hypothecation agreement. It is admitted that the endorsement of hypothecation in the RC book was already done. The averment in the complaint stating that the transfer of name in the documents is the responsibility of the first opposite party is false. The loan amount was disbursed on execution of documents including the date of hypothecation showing the charge over the vehicle. The endorsement of the charge in RC book is with the complainant and charge created is only hypothecation. It is the second opposite party on whom lies the responsibility to pay compensation for the damage to the complainant. The GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff shows that in case of package policies, transfer of the “ Own Damage” section of the policy in favour of transferree
(4)
shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of specific request from the transferree along with the consent of the transferor . As per the regulation the own damage insurance of the vehicle will be effected after changing the policy in the name of new owner after remitting an amount of Rs. 50/- and the transfer has to be effected within 14 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. It is admitted in the compliant that the name was transferred to the complainant in the RC book with effect from the 05-02-2007 and was handed over to the complainant on 07-02-2007. The first opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant and no deficiency in service can be alleged upon the first opposite party.
4. The version of the second opposite party is that the policy of the vehicle was in the name of One Mr. Rajamoni for a period from 30-09-2006 to 29-09-2007. There is no contract between the complainant and second opposite party on the date of accident. Hence there is no liability cast upon the second opposite party to pay the insurance claim and repudiated the claim.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and produced Exbts. A1 to A10 series to substantiate the case.
6. Both the counsels argued the case in detail and we had gone through the documents. The purchase of the vehicle by the complainant
(5)
was from one Mr. Rajamoni and availed a loan from the first opposite party for the purchase the vehicle. Though the vehicle purchased on 14-11-2006 the entry in RC book changed the name to the complainant was on 05-02-2007 and the vehicle was hypothecated to the first opposite party. The respondent pleaded that after completing the formalities by changing the name in the RC book the respondent received the documents only on 07-02-2007 and the unfortune accident happened on 08-02-2007wherein the vehicle got damaged . The respondent had to spend Rs. 2,55,000/- towards repairing charges and claimed insurance from the appellant which was repudiated and on filing the complaint the Forum Below allowed the claim. We find that respondent received the RC Book on entering his name as owner only on 05-02-2007 from the authorities. It is clear from the document that the entry was made on 05-02-2007 and from that day onwards the hypothecation effected. Obviously the vehicle was having the insurance during the period from on 03-09-2006 to 29-09-2007 with the previous owner. Even after changing the ownership, the name in the insurance policy was not changed. At this instance, we would like to point out that as per the provisions of GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff in the event of transfer of ownership of vehicle the liability of the insurer under the policy is deemed have been transferred in favour of the transferree
(6)
of the vehicle with effect from the date of transfer provided the transferree applies for the same to the insurer within 14 days from the date of transfer. The dispute arose in this case is with regard to the change of name of the transferor to the name of the complainant. According to the appellant there is no insurable interest with the first respondent who is not the holder of the insurance. It is clear that the insurer received the premium for the subsequent period from the previous owner. The policy is intended for the vehicle as well as for the person and 3rd party. The insurer received the premium and the appellant cannot repudiate the liability to pay the insurance. As per GR 17 there is a reasonable period of 14 days from the date of transfer of the ownership and to apply for the change of name in the policy. Accident took place on 08-02-2007 whereas the first respondent got the name transferred to his name only on 05-02-2007 and the RC book received on 07-02-2007. There is the statutory period of 14 days to change the name and insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim. The accident took place within the statutory period and the name of the owner changed on 15-02-2007 . Hence we are of the firm view that there exist statutory liability to retain the insurable interest and to discharge the statutory obligation. Hence the appellant is not entitled to repudiate the claim of the respondent. The accident
(7)
occurred within the permissible period of 14 days and after change of owner of vehicle is entitled to change the name in the policy. Hence we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Forum Below.
In the result appeal dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below. The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with LCR.
A.RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRA DAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sh/-
