DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 09/12/2020
CC/159/2020
Nishad.M
S/o Muhammed Haneefa
Varukunnu House, Pulinkoottam
Kannambra (P.O), Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. S.Suresh)
V/s
The Branch Manager
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company
Chicago Plaza, Rajaji Road
Near KSRTC Bus Stand
Kochi - 682 004 - Opposite party
(By Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant purchased a lorry having registration number KL-27-E-6186 from one Mr. Dennis.M.John on 09/03/2020. Though the Registration Certificate was duly transferred in the name of the complainant, the insurance policy was not transferred to his name. The policy was valid from 12/02/2020 to 11/02/2021. In the meantime the vehicle met with an accident on 31/03/2020 causing considerable damage to the vehicle. The opposite party repudiated his insurance claim on the reason that the insurance policy had not been transferred in his name at the time of accident/claim. Aggrieved by this he approached this Commission seeking a relief of Rs. 6,87,760/- towards the expenses incurred for repairing the vehicle, survey charge, mental agony, etc.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance, and filed version.
3. Since the complainant failed to file proof affidavit inspite of several opportunities given, the evidence of complainant was closed. Subsequently the complainant filed IA 391/22 for reopening the evidence and IA 329/22 for accepting the proof affidavit which was allowed on cost. Documents as per the proof affidavit were marked as Ext. A1 to A9. Opposite party objected all the documents on the ground that they are photocopies. However there was no allegation that they are forged or fabricated. Hence objections are overruled. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext. B1 to B4 as evidence.
4. The only issue involved in this complaint is whether the opposite party is in order in repudiating the insurance claim on the reason that the policy has not been transferred in the name of the complainant at the time of accident/claim.
The Ext. B4 marked in the side of the opposite party as well as Ext. A9 marked by the complainant is the Repudiation letter wherein the opposite party has quoted the legal position regarding change of ownership of vehicle.
As per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, “Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this chapter is transferred
- The transferor shall
- In case of the vehicle registered within the state, within fourteen days of transfer, report the fact of transfer in such form, with such document and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within those jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a report to the transferee…”
In the matter of insurance policy, the relevant portion of the General Regulation 17 of the Indian Motor Tariff is quoted as follows
“The transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, the details of registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.”
In the present case, though the Registration Certificate was got transferred and the complainant received the certificate from the registering authority on 23/03/2020, the insurance policy got transferred in his name only on 14/10/2020. The only reason quoted by the complainant is the lock down declared on account of Covid-19 from 24/03/2020 to 17/05/2020 and the exemption allowed vide Government of India circular RT/11012/02/2019 MVL (pt 8) dated 30/03/2020. Inspite of clear directions from the Commission, the complainant did not produce this circular. Further, the exact date of application for transferring the policy in the name of the complainant is also not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or proof affidavit. Hence it is clear that the complainant did not file the request for transfer immediately even after the accident.
So it is evident that there was inordinate delay in transferring the policy in the name of the complainant for reason not attributable to the opposite party and the absence of valid insurance policy in the name of the complainant is genuine.
Therefore the complainant is dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of May, 2023.
Vinay Menon V
President
Vidya.A
Member
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: FIR from Kodakara Police Station dated 02/04/2020.
Ext. A2: Final Report dated 30/04/2020 from Kodakara Police Station.
Ext. A3: Inspection Report by Kodakara Police Station.
Ext. A4: Copy of RC for vehicle number KL-27-E-6186.
Ext. A5: Copy of Insurance policy.
Ext. A6: Copy of Insurance policy.
Ext. A7: Copy of Driving Licence of Mr. Mukesh.M.
Ext. A8: Motor Final Survey Report dated 13/06/2020.
Ext. A9: Letter from HDFC ERGO dated 18/06/2020.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext. B1: Copy of Insurance policy.
Ext. B2: Motor Final Survey Report dated 13/06/2020.
Ext. B3: Copy of RC for vehicle number KL-27-E-6186.
Ext. B4: Letter from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Dated
03/06/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
Cost: 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.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member