This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on 08.07.2015  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru.V.Balasubramanian, the counsel for the complainant and Tmt.K.Geetha,  the counsel for the  opposite party  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following  

By President, Thiru..P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.                    

2) The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that Thiru.Gunasekaran, the husband and father of the 1^st and 2^nd complainant respectively purchased a Scooty Pep Plus two wheeler bearing registration No. TN 50 E 1459 from one Tmt. Punithavathi and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2011and the registration certificate was transferred in favour of the said Gunasekaran at the Regional Transport Office, Thanjavur. Whilst so the said Gunasekaran while driving the said vehicle on 07.09.2010 at 9.00 A.Mmet with an accident in which the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-49 N 1370 dashed against the vehicle driven by Gunasekaran causing the road accident in which the Gunasekaran died on the way when he was taken to the hospital.His vehicle was insured with apackage policy by the opposite party and separate premium of Rs.50/- also was paid for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the owner cum driver in case of accident.When the complainants claimed the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party the latter rejected their claim stating that the policy was applicable only to the policy holderTmt.Punithavathi and not to the deceased Gunasekaran who did not get the policy transferred in his favour after the purchase of the vehicle from the said Punithavathi.The repudiation of the claim of the complainants by the opposite party is sheer deficiency of service on their part and therefore the complainants prays for an order to direct the opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony caused to the first complainant owing to the ill treatment meted out to her by the opposite party, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses andRs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service totalingRs.5,00,000/-with interest along with cost of this litigation and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

3) The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is  that the original  policy holder Tmt.Punithavathi  alone  can claim  the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  under the personal accident cover  and the subsequent  transferee Gunasekaran who died  in the accident is not  eligible  for the benefit under the policy in as much as there is no contract of Insurance between him and the opposite party as the policy was not transferred  to his name even though the registration certificate  of the vehicle was transferred by the  Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur.  Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to claim  the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in the absence  of any contract of insurance between the deceased Gunasekaran and the opposite party.  Further in MCOP.No. 909/2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur compensation had been awarded by the tribunal to be paid by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam, the 2^nd respondent therein  and the said claim application was dismissed as against the opposite party,   who is  the first respondent  therein .  Therefore,  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed in liminie.  

4)  The  first complainant  has filed her proof affidavit  reiterating  all the averments made in the complaint and filed  10 documents  which are marked as Ex.A.1 to  Ex.A.10 and subsequently  another document  was filed with a memo at the time of argument and it  is marked as Ex.A.11.  The official of the  opposite party  has also  filed  his   proof  affidavit and filed  one documents  which is marked as Ex.B.1.  Written arguments have been filed by  both the sides.  

5)   The points for Determination are:

                    1) Whether there is  any deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite party?

                    2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6)  POINT  NO.1:   The main contention of the opposite party  filing Ex.B.1 the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court, Thanjavur)  in MCOP No. 909/2010 on his  file is that the complainants have been given  compensation  in the said proceedings to be paid by the Tamil Nadu  State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam  the 2^nd  respondent therein and the said petition had been dismissed by the Tribunal as against the opposite party who is the first respondent therein and therefore  the complainants  are not entitled to file  this complaint  claiming compensation for the second time as against this opposite party.  Another objection raised by the opposite party is that originally the policy  for the vehicle TN-50 E 1459 had been issued  to its owner  one Tmt.Punithavathi  who had paid the premium of Rs.50/- to cover the personal accident compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  but the  deceased Gunasekaran who claims  to have purchased  the said vehicle from Tmt.Punithavathi had not transferred  the insurance policy in his name and  hence the opposite party is not entitled to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs  of the deceased Gunasekaran who had no contract of insurance with the opposite party.  The said compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  can be claimed  if  at all only by the said  Punithavathi alone as the policy is applicable only  to herself. As regards the first contention of the opposite party  that the complainants are not entitled  to file this  complaint  for the 2^nd  time claiming compensation  against the opposite party  for the same accident causing the death of the deceased Gunasekaran,  this Forum points out that the said  order under  Ex.B.1 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No. 909/2010 had been passed  only as against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam, since the  driver caused the accident  driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased Gunasekaran and that petition was dismissed by the  Tribunal as against the first respondent, the opposite party herein. Since the said Transport Corporation  was alone is liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased Gunasekaran  which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Corporation.  But this complaint is filed  alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party who has rejected the claim of the complainants  for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- covered under Ex.A.4 to the owner cum driver of the insured vehicle in case of his death in an accident.  Therefore the  earlier order passed by the  Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MCOP No.909/2010 is not a bar for the maintainability of this complaint against the opposite party. 

7) As regards the contention of the opposite party that there is no contract of insurance between the deceased Gunasekaran  and the opposite party and  previously  the insurance policy had been issued only to Tmt.Punithavathi  the owner of the vehicle TN-50 E 1459 and therefore  the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  payable  on the death of the owner cum driver of the vehicle is applicable only to the said policy holder   Tmt.Punithavathi and  not to the deceased Gunasekaran and therefore under the said policy  Ex.A.4 the complainants are not entitled to claim their  compensation  and hence  their claim had been rightly rejected by the opposite party through her  letter under Ex.A.8.

8) On the side of the complainant the First Information Report registered in Crime No.568/2010 on the file of the Thanjavur Taluk Police Station is filed as Ex.A.1 and it makes it clear that the Motor accident causing the death of the deceased Gunasekaran had occurred only owing to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus TN-49- N 1370 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam.Ex.A.2 is the Post Mortem certificate relating to the deceased Gunasekaran which makes it clear that he died owing to the complications of multiple injuries involving vital organ the Brain, Spinal card, lungs caused in the accident.Ex.A.3registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No.TN 50 E 1459 originally standing in the name of Punithavathi and subsequently transferredtoS.Gunasekaranon 23.07.2010. Ex.A.4 is the insurance policy issued by the opposite party to the said vehicle TN 50 E 1459 the policy holder being Tmt. S.Punithavathi.It is a package policy and a separate premium of Rs.50/- is paid towards Personal Accident to the owner-cum- driver for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.The period of the policy isf rom 15.07.2010 to14.07.2011 and the accident has taken place only during the said period of the policy.Ex.A.5is the copy of the driving licence of the deceased Gunasekaran.Ex.A.6 is the inspection report of the motor vehicle inspector relating to the said vehicle which has disclosed that no mechanical defect of the vehicle is there a son for the accident.Ex.A.7is the postal receipt for sending the claim to the opposite party by the complainant.Ex.A.8 is the reply sent by the opposite party rejecting the claim of the complainant.Ex.A.9 is the office copy of the notice issued by the complainants’ lawyer with the postal receipt to the opposite party,Ex.A.10 is the postal acknowledgement card of the opposite party andEx.A.11 is the certified copy of the deposition of the official of the opposite party who deposed evidence as RW 1 on behalf of the opposite party, the first respondent in MCOP No. 909/2010 on the file of Principal District Court, Thanjavur.

9) It is true  that the deceased Gunasekaran though  changed the ownership of the vehicle in his name through the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur had not effected the name transfer of the policy in his name and the policy is all along in the name of Tmt.Punithavathi  who sold the two wheeler to the said Gunasekaran.  But the sale of the vehicle by the said Punithavathi  to the  said Gunasekaran is not disputed by the opposite party. The policy issued  under the Motor Vehicle Act is relating to the vehicle and the cause of action would arise only if the vehicle is involved in the  Motor Accident.  When  a vehicle is transferred by its owner  to another person automatically all the rights and liabilities of the owner attached to the said vehicle are also  deemed to have been transferred to the transferee. No  doubt   Tmt.Punithavathi  had paid the premium  under Ex.A.4 for the personal accident  cover of Rs. 1,00,000/- but as the vehicle is transferred  all the benefits under the policy relating to the said vehicle is also deemed to have been transferred to the  transferee.  The death of the transferee of the vehicle Gunasekaran in the  road accident is not denied by the opposite party and it is not the  case of conflict  of the  claim for the compensation  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- between the erstwhile owner Tmt.Punithavathi and the legal representatives of the subsequent transferee Gunasekaran.  What benefit  is due under the policy Ex.A.4 to Tmt.Punithavathi the owner of the vehicle at the time of issuing the policy would automatically go to the subsequent transferee or to his legal representatives.  The subsequent transferee  Gunasekaran  having purchased the vehicle from its owner Tmt.Punithavathi has  stepped in the shoes of the erstwhile owner and would be entitled to all the  benefits  under in the policy and  answerable to all the liabilities also under the policy.  No circular or  guidelines or terms and conditions  of the policy is pointed out by the opposite party to substantiate their  contention  that  the subsequent transferee of the vehicle is not entitled to claim the compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-   applicable to the death of the owner cum driver of the vehicle  in an accident.   In such circumstances the contention of the opposite party that only  Punithavathi the original policy holder Ex.A.4 alone could  claim the benefits under the policy and not the subsequent transferee without paying the  special premium of Rs.50/- there in is not at all acceptable  as it is neither reasonable nor valid under law.  Therefore the refusal on the  part of the opposite party to pay the compensation  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants is sheer deficiency of service on his part.

10) POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part. The  opposite party is  directed to pay  the compensation  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) the compensation amount under the policy  with interest at the  rate of 12%  from 03.02.2011 the date of the claim by the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience  and hardship caused to him  owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite party  and to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards  cost of this litigation.  The opposite party  is   directed to pay the   said compensation amount to the complainant  within 30 days  from the date of this order, failing which   interest  at the rate of 12% per annum shall  accrue to the compensation of Rs.25,000/- and further  interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall accrue to the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the date of this order till date of its realization.

             This order was dictated by me to the Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected  and pronounced by me on this  23rd   day of July  2015.

MEMBER -I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:-

List of documents on the side of the  Opposite party :