Kerala

Wayanad

CC/97/2018

Akhil Madhavan, S/o Sethumadhavan, Surabhi Nivas, Moolankavu Post, Kuppadi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Noornal Building, Chungam, Sulthan Bathery, 673592 - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2020

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/97/2018
( Date of Filing : 06 Jun 2018 )
 
1. Akhil Madhavan, S/o Sethumadhavan, Surabhi Nivas, Moolankavu Post, Kuppadi
Kuppadi
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Noornal Building, Chungam, Sulthan Bathery, 673592
Bathery
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ananthakrishnan. P.S PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Beena M MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. A.S Subhagan MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 29 Feb 2020
Final Order / Judgement

By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

 

            This is a complaint filed under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

            2.  The case of this Complainant in brief is as follows:-  The Complainant  purchased  a Maruthi 800 Car bearing  registration  No.KL 18D 1656  from the Opposite Party and on 22.07.2017  the R.C has transferred  in his name.  The vehicle  was insured  by the previous  owner  Sri. Nazeer with the Opposite Party remitting Rs.3,456/-  as insurance premium under  policy No.1016023117 P 103033311.   The validity of the insurance policy was  with effect from 25.5.2017  to 24.5.2018.  On 26.01.2018  the vehicle met with an accident and the matter was reported to the police and G.D entry was made as per No. 11/CIR/KD/2018.  The damage caused to the vehicle on account of the accident was reported to the Opposite Party and the authorized surveyor of the Opposite Party investigated the vehicle and an estimate was prepared.  As per the direction of the Opposite party the vehicle was repaired at the authorized service centre of  Maruthi vehicle named “Auto One line”  for  which the Complainant has incurred  an expenditure of Rs.40,550/-  in respect of spare parts and labour charge.  Afterwards the Complainant submitted  the  application before the Opposite party together with necessary documents, for getting insurance claim.  But the claim application was rejected by the Opposite Party stating that the insurance policy of the vehicle was not transferred to the name of the Complainant from the previous  R.C owner.   The Complainant  contents  that  when he approached the Opposite party for the transfer of the insurance policy to his name,  the Opposite Party told him that  as there was network problem,  the Complainant was required to transfer the policy only at the time of further renewal of  the policy.  Hence  the Complainant did  not transfer the policy to his name.    In the  above circumstance,  the Opposite Party is liable to pay the insurance claim  as there    is a valid insurance policy  at   the  time   of   the accident.  The rejection of the claim application is deficiency in service of the  Opposite Party,  which has  resulted in loss and injury to the Complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable  to indemnify the same and as such the complainant prays before the Forum  to direct the Opposite Party  to pay the Complainant  a claim of Rs.40,550/-  with 12% interest  per  annum  and Rs.10,000/-  in toto compensation for  deficiency in service of the Opposite Party and cost of the Complaint.

 

            3. The contentions of the Opposite party in his version are as follows:-  The complaint is not maintainable as per law , facts and circumstances of the case.  The complaint is filed in an experimental nature without any bonafides.  The Maruthi Car

bearing  registration No. KL 18D 1656 was insured  with the Opposite Party as per policy No.101602311 P 103033311 for the  period starting  from 25.05.2017  to 24.05.2018  in favour of Sri. Naseer.  The Opposite Party  is not  having any privity of contract existed with  the complainant as on the date of  the accident.  The ownership of the vehicle was transferred  in favour of the Complainant as on 22.07.2017.  This transfer was not communicated to the Opposite Party and no steps  were taken to transfer the insurance policy in favour of the Complainant as contemplated in section 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act.  In this case there existed no insurable interest at the time of the claim.   After the receipt of the  claim the Opposite Party repudiated the claim  and it was informed  to the Complainant on 20.02.2018.  The Opposite Party also submitted  that there  was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party.  In this circumstance the Opposite Party has prayed  before the Forum to disallow the complaint with compensatory cost of the Opposite party.

 

            4. Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant  and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side.  He was examined as PW1 on 12.11.2019.

 

            5.  Proof affidavit was filed by the Opposite party on 06.01.2020 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked  from his  side.  He was examined on 14.02.2020.          

 

6. On the  contentions of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party and considering  the documents produced,  proof affidavits filed and examination of both the parties,  the forum raised the following points for consideration.

  1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party?
  2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get any repair charge or claim as prayed for?
  3. Relief and cost.

 

7.  Point No.1:-  It is  the admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased the

Maruthi 800 car bearing Registration No. KL 18D 1656 from Nazeer  and the RC  was transferred to the  name of the Complainant on 22.07.2017.  It is  also an admitted fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 26.01.2018.  On the date of the accident though there was insurance policy with the Opposite party in respect of the vehicle it was not in the name of the Complainant  but it was in the name of the previous  owner- Sri.  Nazeer.      The  contention  of   the   Complainant is that as there was insurance policy in respect  of the vehicle at the time of accident the Opposite Party is liable to indemnify the complainant the  expenditure he  incurred  including compensation and cost.  The contention of the Opposite Party is that at the            time of accident there was no insurance policy in the name of the complainant and 

as such there is no insurable interest to the Complainant and there was no privity of  contract existed  between the Complainant and Opposite Party at the time of the accident.  So the Opposite Party is not  liable to indemnify the Complainant for the expenditure incurred  by the Complainant including compensation and cost for  which  the Opposite Party has relied on section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles  Act which reads as follows:-

            “The  transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer  in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the facts of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the  certificate in his favour  and the insurer shall make  necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of  insurance in regard to the transfer of  policy of insurance”.

 

            8. The Complainant alleged that he had approached the Opposite Party for transfer of insurance policy in his name but the Opposite Party told him that as the network was complaint he was needed to transfer the insurance policy only at the time of its renewal.  This  allegation of the Complainant is denied by the Opposite Party.

 

            9. Here the RC was transferred to the name of the Complainant on 22.07.2017  and the accident occurred  on 26.01.2018.  The vehicle   had  insurance  policy with

effect from 25.05.2017 to 24.05.2018  in the name of the previous owner but not in the name of the Complainant.   So relying upon section  157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act  it is  found mandatory that within 14 days of transfer of the vehicle to the name of the  transferee, the insurance policy should be transferred to the name of the transferee.  Here  such an action  has not been taken from the Complainant  to get transferred  the policy of the vehicle in his name.    So from  the facts, evidences adduced,  documents marked and the circumstances of the case,  the Forum is of the view that there  has been no deficiency of service from the  part of the Opposite Party as there was no valid insurance policy of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant, at the time of the accident.

 

            10. Point No.2:-  As point No.1 is found against the Complainant he is not entitled to get any repair charge  or claim as prayed for.

 

            11. Point  No.3:-  Since point No.1  and 2  are against the Complainant  he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

 

            In the result,  the complaint is dismissed.  No cost to either parties.

 

 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  29th  day of February 2020.

Date of filing : 14.05.2018.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER:     Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

 

PW1.              Akhil Madhavan                             Complainant.                                              

 

 

Witness for the Opposite Party-

 

OPW1.          Sundaran Konadan                                    Branch Manager.

           

 

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.        Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2.        Copy of Motor Insurance – Private Car Package Policy Schedule.

A3(a).              Copy of Bill.                                                dt:08.02.2018.

A3(b).  Copy of Bill.                                                dt:08.02.2018.

A4.       Letter.                                                          dt:20.02.2018.

 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.      Private- Car Package Policy.

B2.      Letter.                                                            dt:08.02.2018.

B3.      Letter.                                                            dt:20.02.2018.

B4.      Motor Claim Form.                                                dt:08.02.2018.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ananthakrishnan. P.S]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Beena M]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. A.S Subhagan]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.