DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 17th day of July 2010 .
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.39/2009 R. Murali S/o. Radhakrishnan No.2/98, Kozhimuttom Polpully, Palakkad - Complainant (Adv. T.U. Shaik Abdulla) Vs 1. The Divisional Office The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd No.IV, Palakkad Buildings Market Junction Tripunnithura Kochin – 682 031 (Adv. P. Ramachandran) 2. The Divisional Office The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Railway Station Road Opp. To Town Railway Station Palakkad. - Opposite parties (Adv. P. Ramachandran) O R D E R
By Smt. Seena.H, President The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Tata Spacio 2005 model Taxi bearing Registration No. KL9/R5328 Model 2005 from one M.A. Faizal. Ownership was changed with effect from 24/04/2008. The fact was immediately informed to the opposite party. The vehicle was covered with Insurance vide policy No.441800/888/912/08, valid upto 29/06/2008. The said vehicle met with an accident on 16/06/2008 at Mangalam. Complainant duly informed the opposite party about the accident. Thereafter he preferred a claim for Rs.50,020/- with the opposite party on 30/06/2008. After more than 4 months, opposite party replied stating that complainant failed to inform the change of ownership within 14 days from 24/04/2008. Even though complainant has approached the opposite party several times for settling the claim, opposite party turned a deaf ear to the matter. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.50,020/- together with interest being the amount spent for - 2 - repairs and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Opposite parties contented inter alia that at the time of the alleged accident the policy was in the name of the previous owner. Complainant failed to inform the change of ownership of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of change of ownership as stipulated under Sec 157 of Motor Vehicle Act. Complainant failed to transfer the policy in his name and hence repudiation justified. Further contented that driver is not having valid driving license. Opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.
The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A11 documents. Opposite party filed affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.
The issues that arise for our consideration is Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the reliefs and costs?
Issues 1 and 2 We have perused the entire records of case and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both parties. It is seen that there is no dispute as to the validity of the policy or that the accident happened within the period of the coverage of the policy.
The only question to be answered for determining whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is that whether transfer of policy in the name of the complainant is a mandatory thing to be complied for claiming insurance amount. Opposite party has specifically contented that even though the policy covers for the period of the accident, it stands in the name of the previous owner and complainant has not taken steps to transfer it in his name.
Sec 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act specifically mandates for applying within 14 days from the date of transfer to the Insurance Company so as to make necessary changes in the - 3 - certificate and policy of insurance. General Regulation No.17 of Indian Motor Tarrif also states that 'own damage section of the packaged policy shall be transferred within 14 days of transfer of Registeration Certificate Book or else the own damage section shall be lapsed. So we find that it is a mandatory thing to be complied. The say of the complainant that he has informed the fact of transfer to the opposite party is not substantiated by any evidence. It is also relevant here to note that even though sufficient chances were given, complainant was not ready for cross examination. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of July, 2010
PRESIDENT (SD) MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX
Date of filing: 03/04/2009 Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Photo copy of Contract Carriage Permit Ext. A2 – Photo copy of Certificate of fitness Ext. A3 – Photo copy of Tax license of Motor Vehicles department Ext. A4 - Photo copy of Certificate of Registration Ext. A5 – Photo copy of Permit in Respect of Contract Carriage
- 4 - Ext. A6 – Copy of bill of Empire Motors dated 06/08/2010 Ext. A7 - Copy of Certificate – cum policy schedule of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Ext. A8 – Copy of Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule Ext. A 9 – Copy of Receipt of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Ext. A 10 – Copy of Motor Claim Form of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Ext. A11 – Copy of letter from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd dated 06/11/2008
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | | 
