DATE OF FILING : 18.11.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.245/2010
Between
Complainant : Gloria Benil, W/o Benil,
Athiyankal House,
Puthukodu Gramapanchayath,
Alagappa Nagar P.O.
Amballoor, Thrissur District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu.)
And
Opposite Party : 1. The Manager,
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Thrippunithura,
Ernakulam District.
2. The Manager,
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Kattappana,
Kattappana P.O.,
Idukki District.
(Both by Adv: Pradeep Kumar)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is the owner of the 'Wagon R' car bearing Reg. No.KL-07-BJ-1162. The complainant purchased the vehicle from one Mr.Krishnamoorthy on 4.12.2009. On the very next day itself the complainant given an application to the RTO, Irinjalakuda, for transferring the vehicle to her name in the RC Book. The original RC Book was also handed over to the said officer. The change of ownership was endorsed in the RC Book on 18.12.2009. But the book was returned only on 8.1.2010. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, it was duly insured with the 1st opposite party for the period from 29.4.2009 to 28.4.2010. While the policy was in force, the vehicle met with a major accident on 26.12.2009 at “Koorali” near Ponkunnam. The vehicle skidded and overturned at the place of occurrence and due to accident the vehicle was totally damaged. The police case was not proceeded because there is no bodily injury to any person. After the accident the vehicle towed to the authorised workshop at Muvattupuzha and from there to Ernakulam. The popular workshop prepared an estimate for repairing and is comes to Rs.1,80,668/-. After getting the estimate, claim application was filed before the opposite party and the opposite party after considering the claim application, repudiated the same on untenable grounds. The reason pointed out for repudiation is not genuine. The complainant never violated any of the policy conditions. The repudiation of the claim on unreasonable grounds are deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So this petition is filed for getting insurance amount in the tune of Rs.1,80,668/- with interest and also for compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The accident occurred in Kottayam district. The insurance policy in question was issued from Thrippunithura branch of this opposite party, which is in Ernakulam district. The complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party as on the date of accident. It is admitted that the vehicle No.KL-07-BJ-1162 was insured in the name of Mr.C.Krishnamoorthi, Asst. General Manager, SBT IF branch, Ernakulam, for the period from 29.4.2009 to 28.4.2010. Insured had sold the vehicle much before the accident. But the transfer was not intimated to this opposite party as required by law. Hence this opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant for the damages caused to the vehicle. The complainant never purchased the vehicle on 4.12.2009. As on 4.12.2009, one Mr. Azeez was the real owner of the vehicle, and he had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Senil Jose. This is evident from the copy of the sale letter furnished by the complainant for processing the claim. As the complainant had no insurance contract with this opposite party as on the date of accident, this opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. It is true that this opposite party received a claim for compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle on 26.12.2009. Immediately, this opposite party deputed an independent surveyor, Mr. B.I. Anshad, and he reported that the actual loss comes to Rs.1,00,285/- only. So the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from this opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, she purchased a vehicle from one Mr.C.Krishnamoorthi, Industrial Finance Manager, SBT, Ernakulam, on 4.12.2009. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC Book of the vehicle. After the purchase, she applied for changing the name in the RC Book in the RT Office, Irinjalakkuda. The vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party and the insurance policy marked as Ext.P2. The vehicle met with a major accident at “Koorali” near Ponkunnam on 26.12.2009 and sustained a heavy damage to the vehicle. Ext.P3 is the GD entry in Ponkunnam Police Station on 26.12.2009 for the same. The vehicle was then repaired at the authorised workshop at Muvattupuzha and also at Ernakulam. The estimate for the repair comes to an amount of Rs.1,80,668/- which is marked as Ext.P6. The claim form was duly filed to the opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the transfer of the name in the RC Book was not intimated to the opposite party. Ext.P4 is the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party. As per the opposite party, it is admitted that the vehicle is having valid policy in the name of C.Krishnamoorthi, Asst. General Manager, SBT IF, Ernakulam for the period from 29.4.2009 to 28.4.2010. The vehicle was purchased by one Mr.Azeez on 4.12.2009 and this Azeez has sold out this vehicle to Mr.Benil Jose, Valiyamplackal House, Muvattupuzha, on 4.12.2009. Ext.R1 is the copy of the agreement created between the said Azeez and Benil which was produced by the complainant to the opposite party. Eventhough the claim form was filed by the complainant, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party because the transfer of the name in the RC Book was not intimated to the opposite party. It was transferred in the name of the complainant, Gloria, with effect from 18.12.2009. But as per the conditions of the policy, 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 the details of the registration of the vehicle and the number and date of insurance, so that the insurer may take necessary changes in record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. Ext.P4 shows the same. That was not done by the complainant within the prescribed period. Eventhough the complainant produced an estimate for the repair of the vehicle, the opposite party deputed an independent surveyor one Mr. B.I. Anshad, surveyor of the insurance company and a report was filed and the total amount assessed in it is Rs.1,00,285/-.
The main dispute of the opposite party is that the accident was not occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and it is occurred in Kottayam district. The vehicle was insured from Thripunithura branch of the opposite party in Ernakulam district. As per the complainant, the opposite party is having branch office at Kattappana and so this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The complainant purchased the vehicle from one Mr.Krishnamoorthi on 4.12.2009 and she applied for changing the name in the RC Book to the concerned RT Office on the very next day itself, but the ownership was transferred in the name of the complainant only on 18.12.2009. The change of the name of the ownership in the RC Book was informed to the opposite party, but she was not able to apply for the same in the prescribed form because the RC Book of the vehicle and the documents of the vehicle were given to the RT Office for changing the same and it was returned only on 8.1.2010. It was because of the delay caused in the RT Office to change the name, so that the delay caused to apply for the change in the name of the insured to the opposite party. The accident was happened in the mean time on 26.12.2009. Ext.P5 is the letter issued to the opposite party by the Joint RTO, Irinjalakkuda stating that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-07-BJ-1162 was transferred in the name of Mrs.Gloriya, Athiyunthan House, Pudukkad with effect from 18.12.2009 and the RC Book of the vehicle was delivered only on 8.1.2010. As per teh agreement produced by the opposite party, which has issued to the opposite party by the complainant, the vehicle was in the name of one Mr.Azeez and it was sold out to Mr.Benil on 4.12.2009. The complainant has duly applied for transferring the name of the ownership after purchase of the vehicle and it was transferred on18.12.2009, as per Ext.P5. As per the complainant, she already informed the matter that the vehicle was purchased, to the opposite party, and formal application was not filed because the delay caused in the RT Office. Unfortunately, the accident took place in the meantime. As per the opposite party, the complainant ought to have applied within 14 days of date of transfer in writting under recorded delivery to the insurer for the change of the insurance. And it is the duty of the opposite party to change the name of the insured and issue a fresh certificate. Here as per the complainant, the pre-owner of the vehicle Mr.Krishnamoorthi has informed the matter to the RT Office and also to the insurance company. The transfer of the vehicle has been done with the immediate effect. The delay is caused only because of the procedure delay in the RT Office to deliver the RC Book to the complainant. So we think that the complainant had done the procedure with immediate effect, but delay was caused in the RT Office and unfortunately the accident was caused in the meantime while the RC Book was in the RT Office, for the changing of name. It is only because of the procedure delay and not because of the latches from the part of the complainant that she never applied for changing the name within 14 days. Ext.P5 shows the same. Eventhough the name in the RC Book was changed on 18.12.2009, the accident was occurred on 26.12.2009. The 14 days time was not at all expired after changing the name in the RC Book. So the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is a gross deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is entitled to pay the amount for the loss caused to the complainant. As per the complainant, the loss assessed is Rs.1,80,668/-, but the opposite party authorised an independent surveyor and the surveyor produced a report. As per the report, the amount assessed is Rs.1,00,285/-. The amount assessed by the surveyor can be awarded to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,285/- to the complainant as per Ext.R2 survey report, for the loss sustained to the vehicle with 12% interest from the date of this petition. And also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the RC Book of the vehicle.
Ext.P2 - The insurance policy of the vehicle.
Ext.P3 - The GD extract of the Ponkunnam Police Station on 26.12.2009.
Ext.P4 - The letter from the opposite party to the complainant dated 1.3.2010.
Ext.P5 - True copy of the letter from the Joint RTO to the opposite party.
Ext.P6 - Estmate of Repairs prepared by Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd.,
Maruti Muvattupuzha, Muvattupuzha.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the agreement of sale of the vehicle created between Azeez and Benil.
Ext.R2 - Motor survey report dated 24.2.2010 submitted by the Surveyor.
