By Smt. Beena. M, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL-73-A-1414 LMV Goods Carrier Truck which was purchased from one Alikkutty on 19/08/2019 along with insurance policy of Opposite Party valid from 31/07/2019 to 30/07/2020. On 19-08-2019 itself the Complainant had applied for transfer of the registration of the vehicle in his name and the change of ownership was endorsed in the RC book on 20/08/2019, but he obtained the changed RC book only on 24/09/2019. While, the policy was in force, the vehicle met with an accident on 08/09/2019, near at Danapadi at Harippad, which was reported to Harippad Police Station and police prepared GD entry. Thereafter, the Complainant intimated the incident to the Opposite Party, who deputed its surveyor. The vehicle was inspected by the surveyor and photographs were taken and permitted the Complainant to entrust the vehicle in workshop for repairing works. The workshop person has estimated Rs.1,84,000/- for the repairing works. An electric post stood at the road side was also broken due to the accident and the Complainant spent Rs.5,000/- towards towing charge and Rs.25,000/- to reinstate the electric supply and for related expenses. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a claim application before the Opposite Party on 14-10-2019 for getting the amount spent for the electric pole works and vehicle repairing. However, the Opposite Party had not cared to process the claim promptly. The Complainant further stated that, the name in the insurance could be changed only after transferring the ownership of the vehicle. He submitted that the papers for transferring the ownership before the RTO were submitted in right time and as there was delay in receiving RC, he could not take steps to transfer the insurance policy in his name. Even though the Complainant had taken immediate and prompt steps to transfer the RC into his name. The denial of claim is deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant prayed that the Opposite Party may be directed to pay Rs. 2,26,728/- with interest at 18%t as the cost of repairs including towing charge and KSEB electrical post repairing charge, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and also direct to pay cost of the proceedings.
3. Upon notice Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party for the period of 31/07/2019 to 30/072020 in the name of one Alikkutty. The vehicle met with an accident on 08/09/2019. The claim had been submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The RC of the vehicle transferred in favour of the Complainant on 20/08/2019, but the insurance policy was in the name of Alikkutty. It has been further stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not taken steps to transfer the policy in favour of the Complainant within 14 days of the date of transfer. The Complainant need not had to wait till the endorsement is made in the RC by RTO to transfer the insurance policy and hence here, the Complainant has no insurable interest with the Opposite Party. Without insurable interest the contract of insurance will be void and there was no contractual obligation existed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the Complaint. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. On perusal of the Complaint, Version, documents, oral evidences adduced by the parties and the arguments in hearing, Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite
Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
5. Point No. 1 and 2:- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
6. The Complainant filed chief affidavit and produced 7 documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Ext. A1 to A7. From the Complainant’s side the Proprietor of Neha Auto Garage, Mr. Danesh Kumar was examined as PW2 and Ext.A7 was marked through PW2. On the other hand, Sri. Nandakumar, the Divisional Manager of Opposite Party filed affidavit and he was examined as OPW1 and the documents produced were marked as X1 series.
7. We heard the counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the documents brought before us and also the case laws referred by the counsel for the parties. In support of contention , the counsel for the Complainant has placed reliance on the cases titled as Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v/s The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020, date of decision and Gurmal Singh v/s Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No.4071 of 2022 dated May 20, 2020. Contrary to it, in support of the contention of Opposite Party, the counsel for the Opposite Party has placed reliance on the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd v/s Jai Bhagwan, Revision Petition No.118 of 2013.
8. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle No. KL-73-A-1414 LMV-Goods Carrier Truck from Alikkutty along with Insurance policy valid from 31/07/2019 to 30/07/2019 (Ext. A2). It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 08/09/2019. The Complainant got repaired the vehicle with the permission of Opposite Party and submitted his claim with the Opposite Party, who repudiated the claim on the ground that though the Complainant had purchased the vehicle on 19/08/2019 which met with an accident on 08/09/2019, the policy was not transferred within 14 days. It is well proved that at the time of accident ie, on 08/09/2019 the RC of the said vehicle was transferred from Alikkutty to Complainant. As per section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of the insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner. As per Ext. A1, copy of the Registration Certificate, ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the Complainant on 20/08/2019. It also shows that the signature put by the Registering Authority was only on 24/09/2019. The insurance policy could not be transferred till the RTO’s transfer formalities were completed.
9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Mohan Singh and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v/s Lalitha Devi, the National Commission has observed that the Insurance policy cannot be transferred till the RTO transfers the vehicle to the name of the new owner in the Registration Certificate. If a claim arises during the intervening period, It cannot be rejected on the pretext that the policy has not been transferred, because the time limit available for such transfer has not yet been expired.
10. Now in the instant case the RC got transferred with effect from 20/08/2019 and as per Complainant’s affidavit it was received by him from the RTO on 24/09/2019. It is an established rule that the ownership of the vehicle will be considered as transferred from the date of new registration in the RC but the Insurance could not be transferred till the copy of the transferred RC is returned by the RTO. When the accident took place the vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party. The insurance company has to indemnify the loss of the vehicle, but in the present case the Opposite Party escaped from liability on technical grounds. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim of the Complainant is against justification. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party wrongly repudiated the claim of the Complainant with an evil motive for unlawful enrichment of money. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party is liable to pay the expenses incurred for the repair of the vehicle, compensation and cost.
11. Now the question arises that what should be the quantum of indemnification. In his Complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he had repaired his vehicle from Neha Auto Garage, Narikuny, Kozhikode and produced copy of estimate given by the said workshop and also produced the receipts for the payment. The Proprietor of the Neha Auto Garage Mr. Danesh Kumar was examined as PW2. He deposed that the vehicle was repaired and the Complainant has paid an amount shown in Ext. A7 towards repair. Demand notice issued by the KSEB on 08/09/2019 shows that an amount of Rs. 6,552/- demanded by the KSEB from the Complainant towards the cost of renewing the damaged electric pole due to the clashing of the vehicle No.KL-73-A-1414 LMV Goods Carrier Truck and also issued estimate on the same day. Ext. A4 is the receipts issued by the KSEB to the Complainant shows that the Complainant had remitted Rs. 6,553/-to the KSEB as against the Ext. A4 demand notice. Ext A5 is the receipts issued by the crane service and Earth Movers, it shows that Rs. 5,000/-were charged from the Complainant for retrieving the vehicle from the accident site. The Complainant has produced receipts of Rs. 1,30,016/- to show the expenses he incurred due to the accident.
12. The total claim amount filed by the Complainant is for Rs. 2,26,728/-, but he produced receipts only for Rs.1,30,016/-. So the Complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,30,016/- towards the expenses incurred to him.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,30,016/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand and Sixteen only) towards the expenses incurred to the Complainant. We further direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the Complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses. The order must be complied within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which
the Complainant is entitled for interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of November 2022.
Date of filing:-16.11.2019
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Amal Valsan. Complainant.
PW2. Dhanesh Kumar. T.E. Welding works.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Nandakumar. O. Senior Divisional Manager.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration.
A2. Copy of Policy Schedule Cum Certificate of Insurance.
A3. Copy of Estimate. dt:16.09.2019.
A4. Receipt issued by KSEB. dt:10.09.2019.
A5. Receipt issued by Crane Service & Earth Movers. dt:08.09.2019.
A6. Copy of GD Entry Certificate. dt:13.09.2019.
A7. Bill.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
X1 series (24 Pages) Documents produced by Adv. K.M. Thomas
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
