2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, admits that the vehicle No.Kl-11.S.5744 was insured with this opposite party as per policy No.MV/13292/2005 for the period from 17/02/2005 to 16/02/2006 in the name of Mr.M.M.Rafeeque and he was the owner of the said vehicle. He sold the vehicle to the complainant on 21/05/2005. The ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the complainant with effect from 21/05/2005. The above said vahicle met with an accident on 24/06/2005 at 5 a.m. After the accident the complainant approached Calicut DO-II office of this opposite party to transfer the policy of insurance in the complainant's name on 24/06/2005 as the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to complainant. This opposite party effected transfer of ownership in the policy and issued policy in the name of complainant for the period from 24/06/2005 to 16/02/2006. The complainant's application for making transfer in the policy was made after the accident. At the time of applying to the insurer for making transfer in the policy, the complainant had concealed the fact of the accident which occurred on 24/06/2005 at 5 a.m. The complainant purposefully concealed the fact of accident for unlawful gain. Then the complainant reported the accident to the Branch Office of this opposite party at Kothamangalam and a spot survey was conducted by Mr.Binoy Mathew, surveyor on 25/06/2005. Later in the claim form submitted by the complainant, the date of accident is mentioned as 24/06/2005. As per the report of the surveyor and the claim form, it is seen that the accident took place on 24/06/2005 at 5 a.m. Therefore, as per the R.C book the complainant was the owner and as per policy Mr.M.M.Rafeeque was the insured at the time of accident. The transfer of ownership was effected in the policy only after the accident. As per Section 157 of MV Act the complainant shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the Certificate of Insurance and Policy. The complainant failed to comply with the provisionsof Section 157 of the MV Act. So the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of the policy. This opposite party never prevented the complainant from plying the vehicle. The amount claimed towards the cost of repair charges of Rs.88,186/- is excessive. If the Forum finds that this opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant, then the compensation for damge to the vehicle may be fixed as assessed by the surveyor. This opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 and P2 on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- The point for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the policy certificate produced by the complainant and the original is produced by the opposite party as Ext.R4. Both shows that the policy was existing for the complainant's vehicle No.KL-11S.5744 and so there is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer. The opposite party also admits that the policy was still alive at the time of accident by Ext.R4. By the version of opposite party, it is stated that as per Section 157 of the MV Act, the complainant should apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and policy. So the only disputed question is whether the complainant applied for changing the policy in the name of the complainant, then registered owner, within 14 days of the change of the ownership of the vehicle. Ext.R4, the document produced by the opposite party which is the policy certificate in which the policy period is written as 17/02/2005, 00.00 hours to midnight on 10/02/2006. It means that the policy coverage will starts from the early morning at 00.00 hours. In the same cetificate in the second line, in a specific column it is written that the endorsement effective from 24/06/2005 to 16/02/2006. So the date written 24/06/2005 means that it is effective from 24/06/2005 at 00.00 hours onwards. In the certificate the name of the policy owner is the complainant himself. Ext.R5 is the private and confidential motor(Final) survey report filed by the opposite party which is reported by the licenced surveyor of opposite party. The name of the insured is the complainant and the date of accident is 24/06/2005 at 5.00 a.m and the validity of the policy is 23/02/2004 to 18/02/2006. So it clarifies that at the time of accident the vehicle was having valued insurance in the name of the complainant, who is the registered owner of the vehicle. So repudiating the claim only because it was not transferred within 14 days and no claim will give in future is not proper. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So the complainant is entitled for a compensation but we think that the bill produced by the complainant that is Ext.P2 is exorbitant. There is no reason to disbelieve the survey report produced by the opposite party. In that report the total assessment of every part of the damaged vehicle is clearly written and the total amount assessed is written as 58626.30. The assessment and the amount is not challenged by the complainant. So the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.58626.30 and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of the petition. The opposite party is not restricted the plying of the lorry anywhere. So it is not fit to give compensation for non-plying of the vehicle.
In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give rupees 58,626/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of this petition and also rupees 2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry an interest of another 12% per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008
