By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint preferred under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- The First Complainant purchased the Maruthi Alto Car bearing number KL 11 AF 8591 from the Second Complainant on 28-06-2019 for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. While so, said vehicle met with an accident on 30/06/2019 and caused damages and the same was informed to the Opposite Party. As per the direction of the Opposite Party, the First Complainant submitted claim application to the Opposite Party. Meanwhile, the surveyor of the Opposite Party examined the vehicle and estimated the damages to the tune of Rs. 97,000/- and submitted the estimate. But the Opposite Party rejected the claim application of the First Complainant on the ground that he had no insurable interest. Subsequently, after receiving repudiation letter from the Opposite Party, the Second Complainant approached the Opposite Party and tried to submit a claim application, but the Opposite Party refused to receive the application. On 08-07-2019, the First Complainant submitted application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name before the RTO and after transferring the RC the insurance policy was also transferred in the name of the First Complainant within 15 days. Since the Opposite Party had collected the premium amount, they are liable for the repairing charge of the vehicle. The denial of the claim is the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.97,000/- towards the repairing charge of the vehicle with 12% interest to the First Complainant or direct to pay the above amount to the Second Complainant and direct to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 10,000 as costs.
3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that the vehicle was insured with them by the Second Complainant for the period from 17/08/2018 to 16/08/2019. The Second Complainant transferred the vehicle to the First Complainant on 28//06/2019. At the time of accident the insurance policy was in the name of the Second Complainant, so the First Complainant has no insurable interest existing with the Opposite Party. The RC of the vehicle was transferred to the first Complainant only on 08/07/2019 and the policy was transferred to the first Complainant on 16/07/2019. The Opposite Party further stated that the First Complainant had not produced the consent letter for transfer of policy from the Second Complainant along with the previous insurance policy to the Opposite Party as per the own damage section of the policy. So the Complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.
4. On perusal of Complaint, Version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite
Parties?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
5. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.
6. The first Complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5 through him. The Second Complainant was examined as PW2. On behalf of the Opposite Party the Branch Manager was examined as OPW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. B1 to B6.
7. We heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the evidence on records. Here the Second Complainant sold the vehicle to the First Complainant on 28-06-2019 by executing a sale agreement between them. It is seen from the Ext. A5 General Diary entry abstract the accident took place on 30-06-2019. At the time of the examination of the first Complainant, he deposed that he had applied for transferring the vehicle registration in his name from the Second Complainant’s name on 29/06/2019. But the First Complainant received the transferred RC only on 08/07/2019. The vehicle was met with an accident on 30/06/2019, i.e. after the submission of transfer application before the RTO. It is seen that even though the Complainant applied for transferring the ownership before the date of accident, the RTO authorities processed it after the date of accident. The Complainant has not intimated to the Opposite Party about the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle, immediately after the execution of the sale agreement. As per the records at the time of the accident the vehicle is owned and possessed by the First Complainant and the claim was also lodged by the First Complainant and the insured is the Second Complainant, that means before the date of accident the Second Complainant had sold the vehicle to the First Complainant. As per GR 17, the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer, who has insured the vehicle with details of the registration of the vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy, so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in the record and issue transfer certificate of insurance. It is well settled that an insurance policy is a contract between a policy holder and an insurer. In the absence of the new vehicle owner’s name on the motor insurance policy, there exists no valid contract between him and the insurance company. Hence, any accidental damage suffered by the new owner is not admissible under the previous policy. This come out from the evidence that there is no contractual obligation between the first complainant and the opposite party at the time of accident occurred. The complainants have not produced any documents that the second complainant has given consent to transfer the insurance in the name of the first complainant. Therefore, the Commission does not think that there is any discrepancy in the action of the opposite party who repudiated the claim. Here, the Complainant could not prove any consumer service provider relationship between the first complainant and the Opposite Party. Here, at the time of accident the First Opposite Party had no insurable interest on the vehicle and at the same time the Second Opposite party also had no right to claim the insurance amount because before the accident he had sold the vehicle to the First Complainant. So, this Commission has come to the conclusion that there has not been any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, this Commission finds that the Complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the Opposite Party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5th day of November 2022.
Date of filing: 15.09.2020.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainants:
PW1. Navas Sherief Complainant No.1.
PW2. Manoj. K.D. Complainant No.2.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Rema. K.S Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Exhibits for the Complainants:
A1. Agreement.
A2. Copy of Certificate of Registration.
A3. Copy of Private Car Package Policy.
A4. Letter. dt:26.09.2019.
A5. General Diary Abstract. dt:04.09.2020.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of Private Car Package Policy.
B2. Copy of Certificate of Registration.
B3. Motor Claim Form. dt:06.08.2019.
B4. Letter. dt:03.08.2019.
B5. Motor Survey Report (Preliminary) dt:02.09.2019.
B6. Letter. dt:26.09.2019.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
