CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 06/03/2012
CC /42/2012
Ramakrishnan,
S/o.Thodappan Moothan,
Chundath Palottil House,
Thachanatukara 1st Village,
Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant
(BY ADV.P.Krishnakumar) Vs
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd,
2nd Floor, Vishnu Building, - Opposite party
K.P.Vallon Road, Kadavanthara,
Cochin, Ernakulam.
(BY ADV.Ullas Sudhakaran)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief:
The complainant is the RC Owner of Indica DLS car bearing registration number KL-9/R-8503, Engine number 475 ID 105 HUZP 80153 Chasis number 600142HUZPA 7254.
On 24-03-2010 at about 12.00 hrs the son of the complainant Sanjil was driving the above said car from Perintalmanna to Palode and when it reached near Thodukap near Karinkallathani a cow suddenly crossed the road and as a result of that driver lost his control and accident occurred and caused huge damage to the car. Vehicle was cautiously, slowly and carefully driven by the driver at the time of accident. At the relevant point of time of accident the vehicle had valid insurance coverage. Due to the accident the main wind glass, back glass, two left side doors and top portion of the car were totally damaged and complainant estimates its cost to Rs.1,90,000/-. Complainant preferred an application to the opposite party on 25.03.2010 requesting the opposite party to settle the amount payable to the complainant as stipulated in the policy agreement. Later a reply was received by the complainant from the opposite party stating that the insurance claim is denied as no endorsement for ownership transfer is done in policy before the loss date. According to complainant it is not proper on the part of opposite party to deny the claim on the above mentioned ground. It is well settled position of law that the insurance company is liable for the payment of insurance claim amount irrespective of the fact that whether the endorsement for ownership transfer is done or not.
Due to the act of opposite party complainant suffered mentally as well as physically and hence he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and claim amount as per the estimate and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following.
Opposite party admits that the vehicle bearing registration number KL9/R8503 was insured with the opposite party for the period of 9/9/2009 to 8/9/2010. The insured under the said policy at the time of accident was one Mr.Ramaraj and the liability of the opposite party to the said insured under the said policy would be subject availability and production of effective and valid driving license to the driver of the vehicle at the time of alleged accident and the RC book of the said vehicle.
Opposite party denies the damages caused to the wind shield, back glass two left side doors and top portion of the car and the estimated cost for repair. It is true that the opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reason that the ownership transfer of the said vehicle was not intimated to the opposite party and that policy issued by the opposite party is not in the name of the complainant.
As per GR,17 on transfer of ownership the liability only cover either under a liability only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. The transfer shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insures who has issued the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance. Since it has not happened the opposite party is not liable to pay the claim neither to policy holder nor registered owner of the vehicle.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1 to B2 marked.
Heard the parties.
Issues to be considered are:
I. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
II. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.I&II
Admittedly the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/R-8503 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 9.9.2009 to 8/9/2010. The insured under the said policy was Ramraj.K. The ownership of vehicle KL.09-R-8503 was transferred to the complainant with effect from 16.10.2009. Where as the policy was in the name of Mr.Ramraj.K at the time of accident.
Admittedly the policy of insurance with respect to the vehicle KL-9-R-8503 stands in the name of K.Ramraj. This fact is evident from Ext.B1 document. At the time of accident the name of the insured in the insurance policy was K.Ramraj. The complainant has no case that he had approached the opposite party within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership to get the policy transferred in his name. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant C.P.Ramakrishnan or his transferor K.Ramraj approached the opposite party to get the policy of insurance transferred in the name of the transferee C.P.Ramakrishnan. Ext.A2 would make it clear that the policy of insurance has been transferred to the complainant with effect from 10.6.2010.
It is true that as per GR 10 there must be an automatic transfer of the policy with effect from the date of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. But it is to be noted that the old GR10 was replaced by G.R.17 of the revised India Motor Tariff. The GR.17 of the revised India Motor Tariff is as follows:
“ On transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a Liability Only Policy or or under a Package Policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle transferred with effect from the date of transfer.”
As per GR.17 the transferee has to 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, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of insurance policy. So that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance.
It was not happened in this case. The ownership of vehicle KL.9.R.8503 was transferred to the complainant on 16.10.2009. The policy of insurance has been transferred to the complainant only on 10.6.2010
At the time of argument the counsel for opposite party submitted that had the opposite party allowed the claim of the complainant and if subsequently the registered owner and insured of the vehicle comes up with a claim under Ext.B1 policy with regard to the very same accident, the opposite party would be legally liable to indemnify the insured under Ext.B1 policy and that would cause heavy financial loss to the opposite party.
So it is clear that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by opposite party cannot be considered as illegal.
On getting the intimation opposite party appointed an independent surveyor to assess the loss. It is evident from Ext.B2 survey report. The complainant has not produced the original bills as they were forwarded to opposite party. Opposite party has filed an affidavit stating that they are not in possession of the original bills and not in a position to produce the same as the original receipts were not forwarded to the opposite party.
In the Ext.B2 Survey report the surveyor has assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.77661.70/-. Complainant produced consent letter from K.Ramraj who was the insured under the policy of insurance (B1) at the time of accident. So that the amount as per B2 survey report can be given to the complainant.
From the above discussions we are of the view that deficiency of service can't be attributed on opposite party. So the prayer for compensation and cost in the complaint can't be considered.
In the result complaint partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.77,700/- (Rupees Seventy Seven thousand Seven Hundred only) to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of July 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Certificate of accident(copy) dt.27.3.2010.
Ext.A2 – Reliance Motor Private Car Endorsement Schedule dt.11/6/2010.(Original)
Ext. A3 – Copy of Detailed estimate dt.25.3.2010.
Ext.A4 – Reply to Claim (Original)
Ext.A5 – Certificate of accident(original)dt.27.3.2010.
Ext.A6- Original Estimate dt.25.3.10 and Original Claim Form.
Ext.A7- Copy of Bill of Automasters, Perinthalmanna dt.31/07/2010
Ext.A8-Attested photocopy of Driving Licence dt.05/02/2005
Ext.A9-Consent Letter dt.19.7.2012
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-Attested copy of Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum policy schedule
Ext.B2-Surveyor's report
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed - No cost allowed
