SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint for getting a direction against opposite party to pay the Insurance claim amount entitled by the complainant, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
The facts of the case are that the complainant submits that he was an owner of Swaraj Mazda Goods Carriage bearing Registration No.KL.59A/3616 and the vehicle was validity insured with OP No.1, Insurance company through OP 2, being the franchise of OP No.1 as per policy No.3379/02494913/000/01 valid from 20/09/2020 to 19/09/2021. The complainant submits that his vehicle had met with an accident on 24/08/2021 near Nandi Bridge within the limits of Koyilandy Police station in Kozhikode District, Kerala. The complainant had availed a financial assistance for the above said vehicle from the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., through its Taliparamba branch, Kannur, Kerala. The loan was availed by the complainant was closed and in regard the form No. 35 certificate was issued on 29/09/2021, by the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.The complainant submitted that meanwhile ie. on 14/07/2021, complainant had entered into an unregistered sale agreement of the said vehicle with one Joseph Akkarappatiakkel,. It is further submitted that the ownership of the vehicle could not be transferred in the name of said Joseph Akkarappatiakkel only for want of NOC from the Cholamndalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., and the NOC was issued by the finance company only on 29/09/2021. The complainant further submits that in connection with the above said accident and FIR was registered by Koyilandy Police and Crime No.1137/2021. OP No.2 had denied the claim application, stating that the application to hanging the ownership of the vehicle had not submitted on time. Consequent to the accident 3 electric poles were broken and fully damaged, the vehicle of the complainant also totally damaged. It is submitted that the complainant had now kept his vehicle at Hi Tec Service centre, Guruvayur Road, Punkunnam in Thrissur District to repair the damage occurred due to the said accident. The proprietor of the said work shop now claiming the rent for keeping of the unrepaired vehicle because of the irresponsible act of OP No.1 and 2. There was dereliction of duty and in deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, towards the complainant. The complainant had caused to send a registered lawyer notice dated 13/12/2021 to OPs calling upon to them accept the application for claiming insurance, but the OPs has neither sent any reply notice nor accepted the application for insurance claim.
OP insurance company challenged the above contentions of the complainant. OP submitted that this OP had issued a motor policy vide policy No.3379/02494913/000/01 in the name of complainant, Mr. Jain George for the vehicle bearing registration number KL-59-A3616 for the period of 20/09/2020 to 19/09/2021 for insured declared value of Rs.2,41,538.
For the alleged loss dated 24/08/2021 the matte was intimated to the toll free number of this OP by one Mr. Joseph A V, who is 2nd owner of the vehicle. Upon intimation of the claim for the alleged loss dated 24/08/2021, M/s Ascom associate investigation and technical consultancy was appointed as investigator by this OP to investigate the matter of the accident. It has come out in the investigation report that, that complainant, on 14/07/2021 who was the policy holder had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Joseph Akkarapptiakel and the complainant or the subsequent owner had not transferred the policy to the present owner. Hence there is no insurable interest and complainant does not have any privity of contract with this OP as both the registration certificate and policy was not transferred as on the alleged date of loss 24/08/2021 upon intimation of claim, a surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle in order to assess the damages and loss. The surveyor after due inspection and verification of the damage submitted the assessment of the net liability for Rs. 1,49,500/-. Since there was no insurable interest for the complainant and he had sold the vehicle and no name transfer was effected in the policy with this OP, the claim was rightly repudiated vide repudiation letter. It is submitted that GR 17 of India Motor Tariff prescribed the procedure for transfer of vehicle and cast an obligation on the transferee to intimate insurer regarding transfer of insurance policy within 14 days from the date of transfer of interest. It is submitted that unless transferee gives intimation as per the provision of GR 17 and an endorsement of IMT 3 issued by insurer, Insurer will not be liable for own damage section. It is submitted that for the above said reasons, the complainant is not entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and paid for the dismissal of the complaint
At the evidence time, complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents. Examined as Pw1. Marked Ext.A1 to A8. On the side of OP two witnesses were examined. Dw1 is senior manager (claims) of OP Company. Marked Ext.B1 to B6. Dw2 is the surveyor and Loss Assessor who prepared survey report in this case marked as Ext.B4. After that the learned counsel of OP filed written argument note.
We have perused the records available and also the submissions of the parties.
The undisputed facts are that OP had issued a motor policy to the vehicle having Reg. No.KL-59-A-3616 owned by Mr. Jain George complainant for a period of 26/09/2020 to 19/09/2021 for insured declared value of Rs.2,41,538/-. Further on 24/08/2021, the vehicle met with an accident. Further on 14/07/2021, complainant had entered into a sale agreement of the said vehicle with one Joseph Akkara ppatiakkel. Another fact is FIR was registered by Koyilandy police station crime No.1137/21. Complainant had submitted claim intimation to the OP No.2. OP No.2 had deputed an Insurance surveyor and loss assessor to assess the quantum of loss happened to the vehicle. The surveyor after inspection assessed the net liability for Rs.1,49,500/- But the claim application of the complainant was repudiated by No.2 through Ext.B5 stating the reason that since the vehicle was sold to Mr. Joseph, the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the material time of accident.
Complainant alleged that though Ext.B6 sale agreement was executed on 14/07/2021 with one Joseph, and closed the finance with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., the ownership of the vehicle could not be transferred in the name of said Joseph only for want of getting NOC from the Cholamandalam Finance company. The NOC was issued only on 29/09/2021.
Here there is no case that the accident was not occurred. It is evident that the complainant has submitted all available documents with him to the OP. Here, so far the Insurance policy is concerned, it is to the vehicle and not to the person. If the original owner files a claim, the insurance company will take plea that since he has sold the vehicle therefore he had no insurable interest. Here from the averment of the complainant, it is revealed that he could not transfer the ownership of the vehicle due to the non-receival of NOC of the vehicle from the Cholamandalam Investment of Financial Company. It is seen that the said averment is not challenged by the OP Insurance company. It is a fact that without getting NOC of the vehicle, the complainant could not take any steps to change the ownership of the vehicle. It is seen that the surveyor appointed by the OP, assessed the loss at Rs.1,49,500/- ie labour charges 84000+ Replacement of spare parts after deducting depreciation 50% since the age of vehicle 13 years. As per policy condition (Schedule of depreciation), and policy excess and salvage value. ie Rs.71,500/-. Total Rs.1,49,500/-. Here there is no evidence that the subsequent purchaser did not file any claim application. So as the original owner has filed the claim, the OP Company was only concerned with the assessment of the loss of the damages and also to indemnity bond from the claimant and also ‘no objection certificate from the subsequent purchaser”.
From the above facts and circumstances of this case our considered opinion, that the contention of the OP that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle is illegal.
As a result the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party insurance company is directed to pay the complainant Rs.1,49,500/- towards the claim filed by the complainant with the opposite party, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs. OP shall pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which Rs.1,49,500+Rs.10,000/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Policy certificate
A2- Lawyer notice
A3- Postal receipt
A4- Acknowledgment card
A5-RR motor Vehicle tax dated 09/05/2021
A6- Memo No.96/2022 dated 21/12/2022
A7-Demand notice dated 13/04/2023
A8- Certified copy of claim petition on the file Motor accident claims
B1- Policy copy with condition
B2- Claim intimation sheet
B3- Investigation report
B4- Surveyor report
B5- Repudiation letter
B6- Sales agreement
Pw1- Complainant
Dw1- OP1
Dw2-Abdul Samad- Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
