SRI.K.VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint seeking for realization of Insurance amount in respect of Autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-2/A 3679 compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the owner of the above autorikshaw by virtue of sale agreements dated 18.3.2004. The autorikshaw originally belating to the 2nd opp.party from whom the 3rd opp.party purchased and from the 3rd opp.party the complainant has purchased the autorikshaw . Since the R.C. owner was abroad Form No.20 cannot be prepared in time. The autorikshaw has a comprehensive Insurance Policy for Rs.65,000/- and the policy is valid from 1..7.2003 to10..7..2004. It has been operated as a contract carriage . On 25.5.2004 at about7.30 p.m. the autorikshaw was stolen by two un- identified persons and a complaint is filed before Kottiyam Police Station as crime No.239/2004. So far the autorikshaw could not be traced out. The complainant thereupon approached the first opp.party for realizing the Insurance amount in respect of the autorikshaw. But his claim was not settled by the first opp.party and hence the complaint. The first opp.party filed version contending , interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. This opp.party has issued a comprehensive Insurance Policy in favour of the 2nd opp.party in respect of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-2Q/3679 for a period from 11.7.2003 to 10.7.2004. The complainant is totally a stranger to this opp.party against whom no policy was issued in respect of the above vehicle. This opp.party is not liable to honour the claim preferred by the complainant. The complainant has purchased the autorikshaw on 18.3.2004 from the 3rd opp.party as per the sale letter dated 18.3.2004. The 3rd opp.party purchased the autorikshaw from the 2nd opp.party, who is the real insured as per the above policy. Though the 3rd opp.party and the complainant transferred the ownership of the vehicle in their names on the basis the respective sale agreement the complainant failed to transfer the insurance policy in his name within the statutory period as contemplated under the M.V. Act. The Insurance policy issued by this opp.party relating to the above autorikshaw infavour of the 2nd opp.party is a personal contract of indemnity and a stranger who is not a party to the above contract is not entitled to claim any benefits under the policy in question. The complainant failed to transfer the certificate of Insurance within 14 days from the date of transfer of of ownership of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant cannot enforce the policy without the assignment of the policy in his favour so far as the policy covering the risk of own damage portion of the vehicle which is strictly a personal contract of indemnity. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: - Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opp.party
- Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P12 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party. Points 1 and 2 The complainant’s case is that he is the owner of autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Q 3679 by virtue of Ext.P12 Sale Agreement dt. 18.,3.2004 and eversince that he is in possession of the autorikshaw and that the autorikshaw is covered by Ext.P2 comprehensive insurance Policy and therefore he is entitled to get the insurance amount from the opp.party. The contention of the opp.party is that Ext.P2 was issued to one Shajahan who is the registered owner of the autorikshaw in respect of this vehicle and there is no contract between the complainant and the opp.party and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. As a matter of fact though the complainant claim to be the owner of the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Q3679 by virtue of Ext.P12 the records such as Ext.P1 shows that the transfer of ownership is not effected and Shajahan continues to be the Registered owner of the above autorikshaw. Ext.P2 insurance policy in respect of the autorikshaw is also in the name of the said Shajahan. The complainant has not produced any material to show that at the time of theft Ext.P2 insurance policy was transferred in his name or fresh policy was taken. The definite contention of the learned counsel for the opp.party is that the complainant who is the transferee of the above autorikshaw failed to apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes as provided under section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and therefore they are liable only in respect of 3rd party risks and the insurer is not liable for the damage caused to the vehicle and in support of that contention he has relied on the decision of Apex Court reported in 1996 ACJ 65. Se. 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read as follows: “[1] Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. [2] The transferee shall apply with in fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance” It has been held in the above decision that “ Thus the entire chapter XI of the new Act concerns 3rd party risks only. It is therefore obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of 3rd party risks since sec. 146 prohibits the use of a Motor Vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of chapter XI. Thus the requirement of that chapter are in relation to 3rd party risks only and hence the fiction of Sec.157 of the new Act must be limited thereto.” It has been further held therein that “ It is only in respect of 3rd party risks that sect. 157 of the new Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred It is only in respect of third party risks that section 157 of the new Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred”. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g. damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the new Ac t and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case, since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. “ In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court the repudiation of the complainant’s claim cannot be interfered with In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN: Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA:Sd/- R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant: PW.1- Sathyarajan List of documents for the complainant: P1. – RC Book P2. – Insurance Policy Certificate P3. – Refer report in Crom No.289/2004 P4. –Photocopy of claim form P5. –Power of Attorney P6. – Adv. Notice dated. 30.7.2005 P7. – Postal receipt P8. – Acknowledgement card P9 - Permit No.C9-022297/03/Q P10. – Tax Receipt P11. – Copy of agreement P12. –Copy of contract dated 18.3.2004. List of witnesses and documents for the opp.party: NIL | 
