Between:<br /> 1.K.Gopakumar,<br /> Thoppil House,<br /> Pallickal P.O., Nooranadu,<br /> Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.<br /> 2.S. Sumesh,<br /> Vayalirakkathu Veedu,<br /> Pathanamthitta Muri & Village. .... Complainants.<br /> And:<br /> 1.The Divisional Manager,<br /> National Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office, Vazhuthackadu,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.The Manager,<br /> The National Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> P.B. No.67, Pathanamthitta.<br /> Addl.3. M.A. Abraham,<br /> Mulammoottil House,<br /> Kozhencherry. .... Opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> Smt. C.Lathika Bhai, Member:<br /> <br /> The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. <br /> <br /> 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:- That on 12.6.2002 the 1st complainant purchased a Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL.3B/3537 owned by the 2nd complainant as per the sale letter executed by them. The vehicle was registered in the name one Mr. M.A.Abraham insurance policy was in his name. The 2nd complainant had purchased the said vehicle from M.A. Abraham on 10.6.2002 as per an agreement executed between them. The change of the ownership of the vehicle was not effected in the R.C. Book. As per the provisions of sale of Goods Act the vehicle is a movable property, despite the absence of change of ownership in the R.C. Book 2nd complainant became the absolute owner and the vehicle was in his possession. Under such circumstances, the 1st complainant purchased the said vehicle from 2nd complainant. The said vehicle was insured with 1st opposite party the insurer, the insurance policy was stood in the name of the registered owner, Mr. M.A. Abraham. The policy was a comprehensive one bearing No.570204/2001/6103210 and is valid from 15.6.2001 to 14.6.2006. On 12.6.2002 after the purchase of the vehicle from the 2nd complainant, the vehicle was in the possession of the 1st complainant, the next day on 13.6.2002 night the vehicle was stolen from the residence of the 1st complainant. A crime was also registered at Adoor Police Station as Crime No.542/02 and investigation was conducted, neither the vehicle nor the accused were detected. The 2nd complainant approached the 1st opposite party and lodged a claim for the loss of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party promised that if the complainants shall produce any document to the proof of sale to the complainants by the registered owner, M.A. Abraham, the claim will be accepted. The complainants produced genuine documents before the opposite parties as directed by the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite parties kept the claim saying that they have to get favourable order from the legal department. The opposite parties dragged on the matter for more than one year and the complainants were not get any replay from the opposite parties settled the claim. The complainants alleged that the action of the opposite parties are illegal and is a deficiency of service. In this circumstances complainants pray for directing the opposite parties to compensate the loss sustained to the 1st complainant as agreed in the insurance contract and to pay compensation for delay and hardship caused to the complainant. The complainants pray for allowing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The 1st and 2nd opposite party filed a common version raising the following:- The opposite parties have admitted the insurance policy of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL.3B/3567 with policy No.570204/2001/6103210. The policy stood in the name of Mr.M.A. Abraham and received a claim form signed by the 2nd complainant stating that the vehicle was stolen. On perusal of FIR, the vehicle was stolen from the custody of the 2nd complainant and Mr. Abraham is the registered owner and the policy stood in his name. Without being any transfer of ownership as contemplated in the Motor Vehicle Act or Rules the complainants have no privity of contract with the insurance company and the principles enshrined in the Sale of Goods Act is not applicable in this case. Without transferring the insurance policy in the name of the 1st complainant, the 1st complainant is not entitled to be indemnified by the insurance company. The another contension raised by the opposite party is that it is well settled that a certificate of insurance is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred, the said provision applies only in relation to third party risks and does not apply to a policy covering risk of damage to the vehicle or person of the insured. The opposite parties repudiated the claim on sound and lawful reasons there is no deficiency in service from the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and hence opposite parties canvassed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. 3rd Addl. opposite party filed his version in the following :- 3rd opposite party is fully conversant with the fact of the case. He sold his Maruti Zen Car to the 2nd complainant. During the period of reported theft, the insurance policy was in his name. He affirmed that he will neither raise any claim not invoke any indemnification nor resort any recourse under the insurance policy, against the insurance company herein. The 3rd additional opposite party has no objection in getting the award amount in O.P.No.253/03 to the 2nd complainant as the vehicle is belonging to him after the sale.<br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration in this complaint are the following:-<br /> 1.Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed <br /> for in the complaint?<br /> <br /> 2.Compensation and Cost? <br /> <br /> 6. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of the 2nd complainant who has been examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. For the opposite parties, 2nd opposite party has been examined as DW1. Exts.B1 and B1(a) were marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.<br /> <br /> 7. Points 1 & 2:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, the 2nd complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1, for and on behalf of the 1st complainant. PW1 deposed that on 12.6.2002 he has sold his Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL.3B/3537 to the 1st complainant as per the sale letter executed by them. The sale letter dated 12.6.2002 executed by the 1st and 2nd complainant produced is marked as Ext.A1. The ownership of the vehicle was in the name of 3rd addl. opposite party who was the original owner of the vehicle and the insurance policy stood in his name. The insurance policy certificate in the name of the 3rd addl. opposite party issued by the opposite parties is marked as Ext.A2. On 12.6.2002, after the completion of the sale, the 1st complainant had the possession of the vehicle and does not change the Registration certificate while so in the night of 13.6.2002 the vehicle was stolen from the residence of the 1st complainant. A crime was registered at Adoor Police Station Crime No.542/02, the copy of FIR is marked as Ext.A3. Investigation was conducted by the Adoor Police Station neither the vehicle nor the accused were traced. The 1st complainant has lost his vehicle by theft. As the stolen vehicle had valid insurance coverage and a claim was raised by the 2nd complainant to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not taken any effort to settle the claim and they dragged on the matter for more than one year. The act of the opposite parties are amounts to gross deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate the loss of the vehicle to the 1st complainant. The copy of the sale letter dated 10.6.2002 regarding the purchase of the vehicle from M.A. Abraham by the 2nd complainant produced is marked as Ext.A4 and the sale receipt issued by M.A. Abraham is marked as Ext.A5. PW1 prayed for allowing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties cross-examined PW1 and brought out that at the time of theft the insurance policy was in the name of 3rd addl. opposite party. PW1 admitted that in Ext.A1, it is recorded that after 12.6.02 he had no responsibility about the vehicle and after 12.6.02 the vehicle was in the possession of the 1st complainant and the vehicle was stolen from the residence of the 1st complainant. By answering a question put by the opposite parties, counsel regarding the reason for lodging the claim before opposite parties by PW1. PW1 answered that he had purchased the vehicle from 3rd addl. opposite party and sold it to the 1st complainant. So he made the claim and PW1 stated that he did not know for what reason the claim was not settled or repudiated.<br /> <br /> 9. For the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party has examined as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B1(a) were marked through him. DW1 deposed that they are admitting the insurance policy of the stolen vehicle Reg.No.KL.3B/3567, and the policy was in the name of Mr. M.A. Abraham and they had received a claim form from 2nd complainant. On an enquiry regarding the theft of the insured vehicle, it was noticed that Mr. M.A. Abraham is the registered owner of the vehicle the complainants 1 and 2 are totally strangers to them. The claim for theft cannot be entertained without a proper change in the transfer of ownership and insurance policy. As per Indian Motor Tariff G.R.17 in case of package policies transfer of own damage section of policy in favour of the transferee shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of the specific request from the transferee along with the consent of the transferor. The certified copy of the G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff is produced is marked as Ext.B1. DW1 stated that they were repudiated the claim lawfully and rightly and prays for dismissal of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. The learned counsel for the complainant cross-examined DW1 and at the time of cross-examination DW1 it is brought out that on 29.6.02 have received the claim intimation along with Ext.s.A1 to A4 and the claim was repudiated on 10.10.2003. On enquiry they know that the original owner of the stolen vehicle was sold it to Sumesh, 2nd complainant and the 2nd complainant sold the vehicle to the 1st complainant. All these are happened within three days. By answering a question put by the learned counsel for the complainant regarding the provision for repudiating the claim. DW1 answered that according to Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act and G.R.17 of Indian Motor Tariff. Relevant portion in Ext.B1 is marked as Ext.B1(a). DW1 is canvassing for disallowing the complaint. <br /> <br /> 11. At the time of re-examination, DW1 stated that the real insured did not file any claim form it is stated that the vehicle was stolen from the custody of the 1st complainant.<br /> <br /> 12. At the time of re cross-examination, the learned counsel put a question to DW1 in the following lines:- “Cu claim A\phZn¨ncps¶¦n F{X cq]m \evIpambncp¶p?” DW1 answered that, “Survey Report {]Imcw 1,66,666/--þ cq]m A\phZn¡¯¡Xmbncp¶p.”.<br /> <br /> 13. Coming to the documents marked from the side of the complainants, Ext.A1 is the sale letter dated 12.6.02 executed between the 1st and 2nd complainant. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the insurance policy certificate of the vehicle No.KL.03/B-3537. The insurance coverage period is from 15.6.01 to 14.6.02. Ext.A3 is the FIR of Crime No.542/02 dated 13.6.02 prepared by the S.I. of Police, Adoor for the theft of the insured vehicle No.KL.03/B-3537. Ext.A4 is the copy of sale agreement dated 10.6.02 between the 3rd addl. opposite party and the 2nd complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of sale receipt regarding the payment of the value of vehicle to the 3rd addl. opposite party by the 2nd complainant.<br /> <br /> 14. Coming to the documents marked from the side of the opposite parties, Ext.B1 is the attested copy of the Page No.7 of Indian Motor Tariff GR 17 Transfers. Ext.B1(a) is the relevant portion in Ext.B1 stating the procedure followed in case of package policies transfer of the own damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee.<br /> <br /> 15. With regard to the complainant’s case, the 1st complainant has purchased a Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL-3B/3537 owned by the 2nd complainant. The said valid insurance coverage from 15.6.2001 to 14.6.2002 with 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The ownership and the insurance policy were not transferred in the name of the 1st complainant. The original owner of the vehicle was 3rd addl. opposite party. From 3rd addl. opposite party the 2nd complainant purchased the vehicle and sold it to the 1st complainant and while in his possession, the vehicle was stolen. At the time of theft the vehicle has valid insurance coverage and the policy was a comprehensive one, wherein the opposite parties undertake and indemnify the owner of the vehicle to compensate the value of vehicle in case of loss by theft accident and such other perils. The 2nd complainant’s claim was delayed by the opposite parties for the reason that the original insured was not the claimant and claimants are strangers to the policy.<br /> <br /> 16. The opposite parties are admitting the insurance policy of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KL.3B/3567 stolen vehicle vide policy No.570204/01/610321 with valid coverage from 15.6.2001 to 14.6.2002. The policy stood in the name of M.A. Abraham, the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the opposite parties, the 1st and 2nd complainants are totally strangers and there is no privity of contract with them. They had received a claim form from the 2nd complainant. Without being any proper transfer of ownership as contemplated in the Motor Vehicle Act or Rules they have no obligation to extend the benefits under the policy other than Mr. M.A. Abraham that the claim for theft cannot be entertained without a proper change in the transfer of insurance policy and ownership in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 17. In this case, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complaint by saying the complainant is a stranger to opposite parties. There is no privity of contract with the complainant. The policy and the ownership of the stolen vehicle stands in the name of 3rd addl. opposite party, whereas the theft took place while the vehicle was in the possession of the complainant and the ownership and the policy was not transferred in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 18. But as per the provisions of law, a purchaser of a vehicle has got 14 days for the transfer of ownership and the change of the name in the insurance policy. However, the theft took place on 13.6.2002 night, which is before the expiry of 14 days as stipulated in Motor Vehicles Act. So we cannot find any fault against the complainant for not effecting the transfer of ownership or change of name in the policy. So the contentions raised by the opposite parties lacks merits and the rejection of the claim by the opposite parties could not be justified. Ext.A2 policy is valid and the acts of the opposite parties are deficiency of service, which caused damage, mental agony and hardships to the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable and hence the complainants prayer can be allowed with compensation and cost. <br /> <br /> 19. In the result, this O.P. is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this petition till this date and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till the realisation of the whole amount from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount so awarded to the 1st complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C. Lathika Bhai,<br /> (Member).<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Prem Kumar (Member) :<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainants:<br /> PW1 : Sumesh. S.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:<br /> A1 : Sale letter dated 12.6.2002.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of the Insurance Policy.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the First Information Report.<br /> A4 : Photocopy of the Motor Sale Agreement dated 10.6.2002.<br /> A5 : Photocopy of the sale receipt dated 10.6.2002.<br /> Witness Examined on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> DW1 : P. Thulaseedharan Pillai.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:<br /> B1 : Photocopy of the GR17 of Indian Motor Tariff.<br /> B1(a) : The relevant portion in Ext.B1 Indian Motor Tariff.<br /> <br />