IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of October, 2017
Filed on 09.09.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
In
CC/No. 294/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. C.M. Chacko The Manager
S/o Chacko National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mannamplakkal House Ground Floor, Swamya Complex
Karikkottary, Ayyanakunnu Building No.20/363A
Kumanthode, Kannur Vellakkinar Junction
(By Adv. K. B. Anilkumar) Civil Line Road, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is an absolute owner in possession of the MGV goods Carrier Truck vehicle, bearing Regn. No. KL-04/X 2220. The said vehicle was purchased from one Mr. K.M. Mathew, Kandathil, Edathua, Alappuzha through the agency named PNS Automobiles. Thereafter registration of the above vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period from 17.12.2014 to 16.12.2015. On 14.12.2015 the above vehicle was met with an accident and that caused damages to the vehicle. The incident was reported to the Police Station and office of the opposite party. Upon the information received by the opposite party, a Surveyor was appointed. On the advice of the opposite party complainant took the vehicle to the workshop and repair the damages. Thereafter the complainant filed a claim statement before the opposite party stating that an amount of Rs.86,950/- as repairing charge and Rs.9272/- as cost of spare parts, but the opposite party denied the claim by saying flimsy reasons. The above said act of the opposite party is nothing but a deficiency in service. In the above situation, the complainant compelled to pay the above amount to the workshop and released the vehicle. As an insurer of the said vehicle, the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Hence complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant herein is not the registered owner and insured of the above said vehicle. Hence the complainant has no insurable interest with respect to the above vehicle. Hence in any event this opposite party is not liable to pay any own damage claim to the complainant herein. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A6. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party and one document produced marked as Ext.B1.
4. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that opposite party issued a policy with regard to the vehicle No. KL-04/X 2220 during the period from 17.12.2014 to 16.12.2015. According to the opposite party the policy was issued in favour of Mr. Mathew. The policy was produced and it marked as Ext.B1. The main allegation of the complainant is that on the date of accident, there was valid policy with regard to the vehicle and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. The contention raised by the opposite party is that at the time of accident Mr. Mathew is the RC owner of the vehicle and policy was issued in favour of him. According to the opposite party since the complainant is not the registered owner and insured of the vehicle, they are not liable to pay any own damage claim to the complainant. In a decision reported in II 2017 CPJ 183 (NC) Satwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Hon’ble National Commission held that since the complainant did not obtain insurance coverage in his own name, complainant not entitled to claim reimbursement of expenses incurred in repair of damaged vehicle. In the instant case the Ext.A1 RC particulars of the vehicle produced by the complainant show that the vehicle registered in the name of complainant from 18.12.2015. The accident was on 14.12.2015. At the time of accident the registered owner of the vehicle was Mr. Mathew. The insurance policy also issued in the name of Mr. Mathew. So it is clear that there was no contract between the complainant and the insurance company and hence the complainant has no insurable interest also. The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - C.M. Chacko (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the RC particulars
Ext.A2 - Copy of Certificate of Registration
Ext.A3 - Copy of certificate from Circle Inspector, Kochi City
Ext.A4 - Legal notice dated 27.4.2016
Ext.A5 - Copy of the reply notice dated 11.5.2016
Ext.A6 - Copy of the bill and invoice (2 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the policy
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
