Date of filing : 30-09-2006<br /> Date of filing : 30-09-2006<br /> Date of Order : 20-06-2008<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.No.114/06<br /> Dated this, the 20th day of June 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> Subair,<br /> S/o.Hassainar Haji,<br /> Panalam, Chengala.Po, } Complainant<br /> Kasaragod Taluk.<br /> <br /> The Branch Manager,<br /> Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, } Opposite party<br /> M.G.Road, Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> The gist of the case of the complainant is that his claim for damages pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14.B 7184 is repudiated on the ground that at the material time of accident the policy was in the name of another.<br /> 2. Opposite party contended in their version that at the time of accident even though the RC was in the name of the complainant the policy was in the name of one Abdul Razak.B.M and hence the complainant has no privity of contract with Opposite party and hence not liable to settle the claim preferred by complainant.<br /> 3. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite party produced Exts B1 & B2.<br /> 4. The arguments of both parties were heard and the documents perused carefully.<br /> 5. The complainant relying on Sec.157(1) of MV Act argued that on transfer of ownership of vehicle the policy of insurance shall be automatically transferred.<br /> But counsel for Opposite party relying on the decision III(2005)CPJ 578 has argued that ‘unless contract of insurance not transferred to tranferee he being a third party to contract not entitled for the benefits covered by the policy. Counsel for opposite party further cited a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1398 and contended that Sec.157 is applicable to 3rd parties and the complainant cannot be considered as a third party as envisaged under chapter XI Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks. <br /> 6. We accept the contentions raised by the counsel for opposite party that Sec.157 of MV Act is applicable only to 3rd parties and the complainant is not a 3rd party mentioned under Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act.<br /> 7. But in 1994 a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to the transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of insurance benefits automatically in favour of the tranferee. The said regulation is a part of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulation. The said regulation reads as under<br /> Transfers:<br /> “On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement. <br /> If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the Insurance company and a new certificate of Insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs.15/-. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate.”<br /> 8. Supressing this regulation opposite party contended that as the Insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the complainant they are not liable to indemnify the loss sustained to the vehicle of the complainant.<br /> 9. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Insurance companies not to take such stand which is contrary to the regulations framed by the India Motor Tariff and Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. Hon’ble Commission further directed the Insurance Companies to give information with regard to the India Motor Tariff to the insurers and not to take undue advantage of their ignorance as the regulations framed under the India Motor Tariff are binding to the insurance companies.<br /> 10. In the light of the above it is clear that the transfer of policy in the name of the complainant is automatic on transfer of vehicle and the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss sustained to the complainant. Hence the repudiation of the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.(IV(2007)CPJ 289(NC).<br /> 11. Reliefs & Costs.<br /> The claim of the complainant is Rs.26188.99 which he incurred towards the repair of the vehicle with cost of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. But in Ext.B2 survey report the surveyor has assessed the damages as Rs.13490/-. We do not find any reason to deviate from the finding of the surveyor.<br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.13490/- with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which on application by the complainant proceeds U/s.25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> A1. Photocopy of RC<br /> A2.10-05-06 Copy of lawyer notice.<br /> A3.30-05-06 Reply notice.<br /> A4.(a) 17-4-06 Tax invoice <br /> A4 (b) 25-4-06 Cash Memo issued by Sasi Automobiles.<br /> A4 © 17-04-06 Counter Sale Tax Cash Memo.<br /> A5.5-5-06 Bill issued by Swasthik Auto Works<br /> <br /> B1.Private Car Package Policy.<br /> B2. 12-5-06 Photocopy of Private and Confidential Motor Final Survey Report.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Pj/<br /> Forwarded by Order<br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br />