BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 103/2004 Filed on 01/03/2004

Dated : 31..01 ..2011

Complainant:

Amritha Raj, T.C.27/1294/2, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

Opposite party:

The Divisional Manager, represented by National Insurance Company, K.K. Building, Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. H. Jayaramasundaran)

Addl. 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties:

2. The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. K. Ahammed Basheer, Puthenpurackal Veedu, Punnathala, Thirumullavaram – P.O., Kollam – 12.

    

(By Adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narendran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2011, the Forum on 31..01..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Facts of the case in brief are as follows: The complainant was the owner of a heavy Lorry having Reg. No:kL-01/J5355 and he had taken insurance policy for the said vehicle from the opposite party bearing policy No. 570203/2001/6302325. The said vehicle had a major road accident on 18/9/2002 and on 25/9/2002 he had submitted the claim petition accompanied with all the papers including the RC Book permit C/F and DL to spot Surveyor, Insurance Officer at Nagercoil and the final Surveyor. Though the complainant had complied with all the statutory requirements the opposite party has not taken any positive steps to redress his grievances. However the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs at high rate of interest and paid the charges in the workshop and released the vehicle. The complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle having insurable interest and there was a valid policy for the said vehicle at the time of accident. As the opposite party had taken a very hostile attitude in settling the claim the complainant had sent a letter on 16/5/2003 to the Chairman Ombudsman, Cochin and copies were sent to the Chairman IRDA, New Delhi, the Regional Manager, National Insurance Company, Ernakulam and also the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Ernakulam. The opposite party had sent a letter on 7/11/2003 stating that they are clearing the same file as the present owner of the vehicle is Mr. Ahmed Basheer and the policy was not transferred in his name at the material time of accident. The complainant further submits that at the time of accident the registered owner of the vehicle was the complainant and application for transferring the ownership was filed only on 24/1/2003. As the opposite party was negligent the complainant had sent a legal notice on 1/12/2003 to the opposite party. The opposite party had acknowledged the notice and sent a reply on 11/12/2003 which is self explanatory for the recalcitrant and impertinent conduct of the opposite party. The opposite party is guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

2. The 1^st opposite party has filed version. Opposite parties 2 & 3 remain ex-parte. The 1^st opposite party in their version contend as follows: The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant was the owner of the vehicle. The policy is in his name. He sold the vehicle to Mr. Vinod Lal Balaramapuram in January 2000 and signed all the necessary documents for making necessary transfer in the RC Book. But the transferee column was not filled. This is the usual practice in this trade. Vinod Lal sold the vehicle to Mr. Perumal residing in Tamil Nadu. Perumal sold the vehicle to Ahammed Basheer Husband of A. Rameeza, Puthen Purackal, Punnathala, Quilon – 12 on 28/8/2002. As on the date of accident ie 18/9/2002 Amritha Raj is not the owner of the vehicle. There was an accident to the vehicle. The present owner Ahammed Basheer produced all the necessary documents in the Office. Suppressing all these facts, J. Amritha Raj dishonestly submitted claim form. Amritha Raj has no insurable interest as on the date of accident over the vehicle. The present owner of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 01 J 5355 is Ahammed Basheer H/o A. Rameesa. He purchased the vehicle on 28/8/2002 from Perumal. The date of accident is 18/9/2002. Eventhough the policy is in the name of the complainant he has no insurance interest over this vehicle. Policy conditions and Motor vehicle laws are violated. This party rightly repudiated the O.D Claim in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court of India. The complainant is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the party. It is only to be dismissed.

3. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the act of the 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim is justifiable?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

3. If the above is in affirmative from which opposite party the complainant is entitled for the reliefs?

PW1 has been examined on behalf of the complainant and marked Exts. P1 to P10 on the part of the complainant. DW1 has been examined on the part of the 1^st opposite party and marked Exts. D1 to D8.

4. Points (i) to (iii): There is no dispute with regard to the validity of the policy. The accident is also not denied. The only contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, at the time of accident on 18/9/2002, the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and hence the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. According to the 1^st opposite party one Ahammed Basheer had produced all documents in the Office after the accident and suppressing all these the complainant has come up with claim. Furthermore the 1^st opposite party contends that on the basis of the investigation done by the 1^st opposite party they have come to the conclusion that this complainant is not the actual owner of the vehicle. The complainant has pleaded that he is the owner of the vehicle and has produced document, the R.C book of the vehicle in support of his pleading.

5. The one and the only point before us for consideration is whether the complainant is the actual owner of the vehicle. We have gone through the records produced by both parties. As per Ext. P9, the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-J-5355 Ashok Leyland is Amritha Raj. J who is the complainant in this case. The 1^st opposite party has come to the conclusion that the complainant is not the ower of the vehicle on the basis of the report submitted by a private investigation report which has been marked as Ext. D1. Ext. D1 has been prepared by a private investigation agency for Insurance Companies. It is not a registered agency. The R.C book which is the authentic document of the vehicle clearly specifies that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle. Furthermore the name of the insured as per the policy is that of the complainant. Hence, hire purchaser is the owner in possession of the motor vehicle even though he will become full owner only when he pays last instalment. The case of the insurance company is that they are not liable to pay compensation as the claimant is the owner. Even if the society is the owner, society has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant and, consequently, Insurance Company is also not liable as liability of the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the owner.

6. When the R.C Book, the original policy are before us, we can never give any weightage to the report filed by the Private Investigation Agency. Furthermore though the 1^st opposite party has produced Exts. D2 & D3 which are alleged to be written by A. Rameeza the alleged owner, it has not been proved by 1^st opposite party.

7. In the light of the documents and evidence on record we are of the view that the complainant is the actual owner of the vehicle and the act of the 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has not established any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3. Hence they are exempted from any liability. The 1^st opposite party shall settle the claim amount of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 1^st opposite party shall settle the claim amount of the complainant and shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of January, 2011.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

C.C.No.103/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Janardhanan

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of letter dated 16/5/2003 issued by the complainant.

P2 : " letter dated 20/5/2003 addressed to the complainant

P3 : " advocate notice dated 1/12/2003

P4 : " acknowledgement cards

P5 : " "

P6 : " letter dated 11/12/03

P7 : " letter dated 12/12/2003 addressed to the complainant

P8 : " letter dated 6/2/2007

P9 : " certificate of Registration

P10 : " letter dated 7/2/2003

3. Opposite parties' witness:

   DW1 : Suseela Abraham

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Investigation report dated 19/8/2003

D2 : Letter issued by A. Remeesa

D3 : Letter dated 24/4/2003 issued by Remeesa. A

D4 : Copy of Sale deed

D5 : Motor Claim Form

D6 : Private and Confidential Motor Final Survey Report

D7 : Motor Re-inspection Survey Report

D8 : Commercial vehicles package policy

PRESIDENT.