CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.268/10
Friday the 28th day of October, 2011
Petitioner : Mathachan Kuruvilla
Kurisummoottil House,
Kallissery PO,Thiruvanvandoor,
Chengannur
2) Mariamma Mathachan,
do-do-do
3) Jubil Mathew,
do-do-do
4) Jossy Mathew
do-do-do
(Petitioners 2,3 and 4 impleaded as per IA
order No.342/11)
(Adv. Shiby Alex)
Vs.
Opposite party : United India Insurance Co.Ltd
Branch Office, Thottuparambil Buidling,
Post Office Junction, MC Road,
Changanchery. Rep.by Divisional
Manager, Divisional Office, Kottayam.
(Adv. Anie.C.Kuruvilla)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 22/10/10, is as follows:-
Petitioner is the owner of a Tata Safari vehicle. It was purchased from Smt. Nisha, Njarumukam, Puthenthoppe, Thiruvananthapuram. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party from 10/07/2009 to 9/07/2010. After the purchase petitioner approached R.T.O Pathanamthitta and applied for transfer of vehicle. On 5/11/09 petitioner approached the opposite party for change of policy. But opposite party insisted the petitioner to produce R.C.Book of vehicle. Petitioner received the R.C. Book only on 5/12/09. After receipt of the R.C.Book petitioner approach the opposite party for transfer of policy certificate but opposite party has not transferred the same. On 15/11/09 vehicle met with an accident by hitting the vehicle with an Electric post. Petitioner repaired the vehicle. Cost of the repair will come to Rs.3,77,629/-. The loss sustained to the Electricity Board was honored by the opposite party. But claim for cost of the repair was repudiated by the opposite party. Hence the petition.
Opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party petitioner never approached the opposite party on 5/11/09 and requested for transfer of the policy. But after 15/11/09, the date on which vehicle met with an accident, petitioner approached the opposite party for transfer of vehicle. When such a demand was made by the petitioner, opposite party asked him to produce copies of From No.29 and Form No.30, in order to confirm the date of purchase. Opposite party also asked the petitioner that if 14 days time had expired after the date of purchase then the vehicle has to be brought for inspection, as per the provisions of AIMT. The surveyor of the opposite party assessed the loss caused to the vehicle for Rs..309100/-. Amount paid to the Electricity Board, if any has to be proved by the petitioner. According to the opposite party since the vehicle was not insured in the name of the petitioner. Opposite party has no liability to compensate the petitioner for loss caused if any. Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of the petitioner and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on their part of the opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 to B7 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Opposite party produced a copy of repudiation letter, issued to the petitioner, dtd 17/8/2010 the same is marked as Ext.B6. As per Ext.B6 claim was repudiated on the ground that insurance policy was in the name of previous owner, at the material time of accident, and there is no contractual liability with the petitioner, by the company, hence claim is repudiated. According to the opposite party, as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, petitioner should have taken steps within 14 days to get the policy transferred with his name. But petitioner had not done the same. Counsel for petitioner submitted that he approached the opposite party several times, before the accident, but opposite party insisted for the R.C.book. Opposite party produce a letter issued by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager of the opposite party. Copy of the letter produced is marked as Ext.B4. In Ext.B4 petitioner stated that the R.C.book was received to the petitioner on 5/12/09 from the RTO Chengannur. On 8/12/09 petitioner approached the opposite party’office for transfer of vehicle. So from Ext.B4 it can be seen that petitioner had approached opposite party only after the date of accident. The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in complete insulations (P) Ltd V/s/ New India Assurance Company Ltd (1996 1 SCC 221) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case opined that insured will not be entitled to compensation in the absence of specific contract with the insurer covering the risk for the damage to the vehicle. Hon’ble Kerala State Commission in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Thiruvenkitam(Appeal No.105/10. Judgment dtd 22/6/11) opined that as per sale of goods Act on paying consideration and getting possession of the goods the purchaser becomes the owner of the goods. Further more Motor Vehicle Act does not prohibit sale by virtue of the provisions of the sale of Goods Act and denying title to the person who purchased the goods by paying consideration for the same. Further no prejudice is caused to the opposite party’s and there is no rival claimant with regard to present claim. In our view we find that claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected, out right by the opposite party. In the circumstances we find that opposite party should settle the claim atleast on non standard basis as discussed in vide decision of the apex court in Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd(AIR 2010 SC2090)
It is also in evidence that the opposite parties had surveyed the vehicle. The survey report is produced and marked as Ext.B3. So the opposite party has to settle the claim on non standard basis that is 75% of quantum of damages as reported by the surveyor in Ext.B3 report. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed in part.
Opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor as per Ext.B3 report. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order. If not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the awarded amount from the date of order till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of R.C.Book
Ext.A2-Copy of the receipt
Ext.A3-Postal cover and receipts
Ext.A4-Copy of GD Extract
Ext.A5-copy of cash bill issued by R.F Motors
Ext.A6-copy of receipt
Ext.A7-Copy of notice
Ext.A8-Copy of reply notice
Ext.A9-Copy of repudiation letter.
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of policy
Ext.B2-Claim form
Ext.B3-Report of the Surveyor
Ext.B4-Letter dtd 16/12/09
Ext.B5-Reply notice dtd 18/12/09
Ext.B6-Repudiation letter dtd 17/8/10
Ext.B7 series-AD cards
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
