Date of filing :22-08-2008. Date of order: 05-11-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC. No. 140/08 Dated this, the 5th day of November 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALA DEVI : MEMBER K.Abdulla Kunhi, S/o. Abdul Rahiman, Ayisha Manzil, Kanboka Compound, Near Juhi Palli, Kudroli, Mangalore, } Complainant Karnataka State. Rep. by his Power of Attorney Holder, T.M. Abdul Latheef, S/o. T.M. Aboobacker Haji, Thekkepuram House, Keekan.Po, Pallikkare Village, Hosdurg Taluk. (Adv. N. Vijayakumar, Hosdurg) The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, } Opposite party M.G.Road, Kasaragod, Po.Kasaragod. Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv. U.S. Balan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant Sri. Abdulla Kunhi, the RC Owner of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KA.19/P8998 insured with opposite party filed this complaint through his Power of Attorney T.M. Abdul Latheef alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party on account of the repudiation of his claim for own damages. According to him vehicle was stolen during the period of policy coverage. Since the complainant was employed abroad the theft of the vehicle was reported to opposite party by one Mohammed Kunhi who was in possession of the vehicle. 2. According to opposite party the complainant Abdulla Kunhi has no insurable interest at the time of theft of the vehicle and the application for claim form was preferred by one Moosa Kunhi. The theft of the vehicle was also reported to the Bekal Police by Moosa Kunhi and as per the FIR lodged before the police his brother Moideen purchased the car. Therefore the claim of the complainant Abdulla Kunhi was repudiated holding that he has no insurable interest. 3. On the side of the complainant Exts A1 to A9 marked. On the side of opposite party Sri.E.Damodaran, Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd, filed affidavit and Exts B1 to B15 marked. Both sides heard. 4. Ext.A1 is the RC of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No KA-19/P 8998. As per the endorsement in the RC the vehicle stands transferred in the name of K. Abdulla Kunhi, S/o. Abdul Rahiman, the complainant herein w.e.f. 14-03-2000. Ext.A2 is the tax receipt. Ext.A3 is the policy issued by opposite party pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA.19/P8998. In all the above documents the name of the RC owner is Abdulla Kunhi the complainant herein. Ext.A4 is the FIR lodged before the Bekal Police with respect to the theft of the vehicle. The FIR is lodged by one Moosa Kunhi. 5 According to opposite party theft of the vehicle was occurred after the purchase of the car by Moideenkunhi and the policy records were submitted by Moosa Kunhi. Hence the complainant Abdulla Kunhi lost his insurable interest on the vehicle and therefore the claim is repudiated. Now the only point to be decided in this case is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed or not? 6. It is seen that all the documents such as RC Book, tax receipt, insurance policy etc are in the name of the complainant himself. It is also evident from the documents submitted by the opposite party that the application for claim form was submitted by one Moosakunhi a person other than the owner of the vehicle. 7. It is important to note that Sec. 146 of the M.V. Act requires insurance of the vehicle. Once the vehicle is covered by the insurance not only the owner but any person can use the vehicle with his permission. 8. Here the complainant who is the RC Owner cum policy holder of the stolen vehicle has no case that he has transferred the title of the vehicle to any one. Hence the principles detailed in the case of Shri Narayan Sing V New India Assurance Co. Ltd reported in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC) has no application to this case that says that “ On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement”. 9. Even if the case of the Opposite party is accepted that the vehicle is transferred without changing the title, it is incorrect to assume that the moment the possession of the vehicle is handed over to the transferee the statutory obligation under the relevant sections of the MV Act ceases and original owner is no longer guilty of causing or allowing the purchaser to use the vehicle. The mere passing of the vehicle to the transferee will not put an end to this liability. U/s 50 of the MV Act the transferor shall within 14 days of the transfer report the fact of transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee. The failure to comply with Sec 50 is made punishable under Sub Section 3 of Sec.50. Thus it is seen that till the transferor fulfills the statutory obligation U/s 50 his liability continues. Further he is the ostensible owner of the vehicle so long the registration is not changed. The liability to pay tax continues irrespective of his rights against the transferee for reimbursements. In Northern India General Insurance Co. Ltd V. Kanwarjet singh AIR 1973 All 357 it was held that a registered owner would have sufficient interest to effect insurance because he is the ostensible owner. Thus it is seen that the public liability to notify the transfer and get no objection certificate U/s 48 of the MV Act would make the original owner to retain the insurable interest. So long as such obligation continues not withstanding the giving up of the proprietory interest which is the foundation for the continuance of the operation of the policy stands. 10. Further the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Banowarilal Agarwalla V National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in IV (2005)CPJ 110 (NC) has held that the transferee who filed complaint for own damage claim while the certificate of insurance stands in the name of transferor has no locus standi to file the complaint since he was not the insured. The Hon’ble Commission further held that the technicality should not come in the way of insurance company honoring its part of contract if the principles of indemnification of loss by insurers are considered. Accordingly the Hon’ble National Commission directed the insured (transferor) to file the claim as per the policy. This complaint is preferred by the RC Owner cum policy holder of the stolen vehicle. Hence applying the principles enunciated in the above cited decisions it can be concluded that the complainant has got the locus to file this complaint and get indemnified the loss sustained due to the theft of the car. 11. Reliefs & Costs. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle at the time of issuing the policy was Rs.1,80,000/-. The policy was issued on 10-05-2003 and the theft was occurred on 23/24-08-03 i.e. approximately 3 months after the insurance. The Insurer is therefore entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of depreciation. In the result the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% from the date of complaint i.e. 22-08-08 till payment for the principal amount Rs.1,70,000/-. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. R.C. Book A2.Taxation card A3. Certificate of policy issued by National Insurance Company A4. Photo copy of F.I.R. A5. Photocopy of certificate issued by Circle Inspector of Police, Hosdurg A6. General Power of Attorney A7.9-8-07 copy of lawyer notice A8.29-9-07 copy of lawyer notice. A9.13-12-07 copy of lawyer notice. B1. Claim Intimation Form. B2. 9-8-07 copy of lawyer notice. B3. Copy of General Power of Attorney B4. Registered returned cover B5. Postal acknowledgement card B6.27-6-07 letter sent by the OP to complainant. B7.Photocopy of final report. B8.25-04-04 letter sent by T.M. Abdul Latheef to Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Kasaragod. B9.Photocopy of FIR B10. private Car package policy B11. B Register Extract (Rules 48 of KMV 1990) B12. form 29 B13. Form 30 B14. Letter issued by OP to Moosakunhi. B15. Copy of IRDA Guidelines of GR 17 Transfers DW1. E. Damodaran Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
