By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainants are aggrieved that opposite party failed to indemnify the loss sustained due to theft of vehicle No.KL-10 H-8293. First complainant is the previous owner of the vehicle and the insurance policy stands in his name. Second complainant purchased the vehicle from first complainant and Registration Certificate (RC) stands in his name. It is contended that opposite party was informed about the transfer of ownership of vehicle and second complainant had requested opposite party for transfer of policy into his name. Meanwhile the vehicle was stolen on 23-10-05 at about 8 AM from Kondotty. Police registered a crime as No.665/05 u/s 379 I.P.C. The case was referred later as undetected. The value of the vehicle/autorickshaw lost was Rs.30,000/-. That opposite party repudiated the claim of complainant as per policy for the reason that though ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of second complainant, the policy was not transferred into the name of second complainant and therefore there is no contractual liability with second complainant. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and claims Rs.30,000/- along with compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting issuance of package policy to the first complainant in respect of vehicle No.KL-10 H 8293 for the period 09-12-04 to 08-12-05. It is submitted that though ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the name of second complainant the policy still stands in the name of first complainant. That opposite party has not received any request for transfer of policy. That complainants informed theft of vehicle to opposite party only on 28-12-05 and that information to police about loss of vehicle was made after 22 days of the incident. Since first complainant has transferred ownership of the vehicle to second complainant with effect from 18-10-05 the first complainant has no insurable interest left in the vehicle. The second complainant had informed about change in ownership and loss of vehicle only on 28-12-05 ie., 70 days after transfer of ownership and 65 days after the alleged incident. Second complainant who is a transferee has not applied for transfer of the policy to his name within 14 days as prescribed by law. That opposite party has therefore no contractual obligation with second complainant. The claim was repudiated for these reasons and that there is no deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by second complainant for himself and on behalf of 1st complainant. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainants. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 marked on behalf of opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> Points that arise for consideration <br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in Service? <br /> ( ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> 4. Point (i):-<br /> According to complainant the vehicle was stolen on 23-10-05 at about 8AM from Kondotty. Ext.A2 is the copy of First Information Report registered by Kondotty Police. The date of occurrence and date of information in Ext.A2 is 23-10-05 and 15-11-05 respectively. Second complainant is the first informant in Ext.A2. As per his statement in Ext.A2 the delay to intimate the incident, occurred only because complainant availed time to make enquiries with previous owner whether there was any default on his part to make payments to financiers. We consider the explanation for delay to be reasonable and acceptable. Complainant has tendered evidence by affidavit that the vehicle has not been recovered. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to contravert the case put forward by complainant. We are able to conclude that the vehicle KL-10-H 8293 belonging to second complainant is lost by theft. Admittedly the vehicle was insured with opposite party during the relevant time of the incident of theft. Ext.A4 is the Certificate of insurance which stands in the name of 1st complainant. Opposite party has repudiated the claim contending that since ownership of vehicle was transferred to second complainant on 18-10-05, first complainant has ceased to have insurable interest over the vehicle and that there is no contractual obligations with second complainant because second complainant has not made any request to get the policy transferred into his name. It is contended by second complainant that he made a request to opposite party for transfer of policy on 16-10-05. At that time he was directed by opposite party to produce the Registration Certificate book after effecting transfer in Registration Certificate book. It is submitted that though transfer was effected in the Registration Certificate book on 18-10-05 he could receive the book after formalities only on 25-10-05. Meanwhile the vehicle was stolen on 23-10-05. Thus the incident occurred within 14 days from the date of transfer. Admittedly the ownership of vehicle rests with second complainant and the insurance policy stands in the name of first complainant. The vital question to be decided is whether opposite party was justified in denying the claim contending that the insurance policy has not been transferred to the name of second complainant. Counsel for opposite party relied upon Ext.B4 which is the General Regulations 17 regulation of All India Motor Tariff. This regulation is similar to the provision of Sec.157(1) of Motor Vehicles Act. But in 1994, a Circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to transfer of the vehicles. The said regulation reads as under:<br /> “Transfers:-<br /> 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 owners entitlement. If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old Certificate of Insurance must be surrendered, to the insurance company and a new Certificate of Insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of Rs.15/-. If the old Certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new Certificate”. <br /> Thus it is very clear that on transfer of the the vehicle the insurance benefits are automatically transferred in favour of the transferee. The act of insurance companies repudiating own damage claim for the reason that policy has not been transferred to the new owner of the vehicle has been highly condemned by Hon'ble National commission in Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. R.P.No.556/02 decided on 22-05-07. It was held, “It is highly deplorable on the part of Insurance Company to take undue advantage of the ignorance of consumers. In 1994, a Circular has been issued by the General Insurance Company with regard to transfer of the vehicles and the transfer of insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The said regulation is part of the India Motor Tariff Regulation”. “It appears that in a number of cases Insurance Companies are suppressing this regulation and take undue advantage and contend with all force that as the Insurance policy is not transferred in favour of the new purchaser, Insurance Companies are not liable to reimburse the insurer or the transferee of the vehicle because the transferee's are not having any insurable interest.” It is further held, “Because such stand is taken by the Insurance Company in a number of cases, Insurance Company is directed to pay punitive costs of Rs.1 lakh under Sec.14(1)(d) for taking unjustified stand and not disclosing the Indian Motor Tariff Regulation which was applicable in present case”<br /> Applying the principles in above decision and as per the Indian Motor Regulations we find that repudiation of claim by opposite party is unjustifiable and amounts to deficiency in service. This point found in favour of complainant.<br /> 5. Point (ii):-<br /> In the complaint the claim is for Rs.30,000/- along with compensation and costs. In the affidavit filed the prayer is for Rs.10,000/- to each complainant. We are able to understand this shifting of claim as well as including 1st complainant as a party to this complaint is only cautious effort by complainant due to the fog created by insurance companies in settlement of own damage claims in cases where the insurance policy stands in the name of previous owner of the vehicle. Consumer fora are not bound by technicalities and so, we ignore the disparity in the reliefs claimed in complaint and affidavit. As per Ext.B1 Insured Declared value of the vehicle as on the date of policy, ie., 09-12-04 is Rs.30,000/-. The accident/theft occurred on 23-10-05 which is within a period of one year. Deducting depreciation of 5% as per conditions of policy, the complainant is entitled to an amount of rs.28,500/- as benefits under the policy. According to the Regulation of Motor India Tariff the policy is deemed to be transferred to the second complainant from the date of transfer of vehicle. We ind, therefore, that the amount is payable to second complainant. In our view, opposite party has repudiated the claim on highly unjustifiable ground and complainant has to be compensated for the same. We consider that allowing interest @ 18% upon the above sum would not only be sufficient compensation to complainant but will also serve as a message to Insurance Companies to stop exploiting the ignorance of public while settling insurance claims. Opposite party has denied the claim deliberately distorting the Regulation which is highly contumelious, for which we hold the higher rate of interest has to be imposed. This point found in favour of complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. In the result, we allow the complaint, and order opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.28,500/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand, five hundred only) to the second complainant along with interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till realisation, together with costs of rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within two months from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 17th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Certificate of Registration regarding the vehicle No.KL-10 H-8293 <br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the First Information Report dated, 15-11-2005<br /> Ext.A3 : Certificate of Insurance issued to the first complainant in respect <br /> of vehicle No.KL-10 H 8293 (Policy No.570305/31/04/6309998) <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4<br /> Ext.B1 : Certificate of Insurance issued to the first complainant in respect <br /> of vehicle No.KL-10 H 8293 (Policy No.570305/31/04/6309998)<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the intimation of loss of the vehicle sent by 2nd <br /> complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Motor Claim Form submitted by 2nd complainant<br /> to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the relevant extract of All India Motor Tariff (General <br /> Regulations 17)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />