DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 29th day of July 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.211/2002
1. E.K. Shiyad S/o. Kunjumohammed 13/659, Edayar Street Palakkad. (Adv.K.P. Nouphal) 2. M. Abu Tahir S/o. Mohameed Musthafa 10/552, Koppam Palakkad. - Complainants (Adv.K.P. Nouphal) V/s The New India Assurance Company Ltd (Rep. By its Divisional Manager) Office Code.761100 Palakkad Divisional Office P B No.43, PDC Bank Building H P O Road Palakkad. - Opposite Party ( O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President
Facts leading to the filing of the case are:
Complainant No. I is the R C owner of a Hero Honda Motor cycle which was duly insured with the Opposite party. While the policy was in force, Complainant No. I sold the vehicle to complainant No. II on 28/08/2001 by way of sale deed. There after complainant No. II was possessing the vehicle as true owner and on 14/01/2002 the vehicle was again insured with the opposite party for a period from 15/01/2002 to 14/01/2003. Since the RC of the said vehicle was not transferred in the name of the IInd complainant, vehicle was again insured in the name of Ist complainant whose name was then shown in the RC book as per the advice of the opposite party. Unfortunately the vehicle was lost by theft on - 2 - 15/02/2002. The Town North Police, Palakkad has registered a case as Crime 41/02 U/S 379 of IPC and after investigation the Police closed the case as undetectable. Thereafter both the complainant approached the opposite party for getting compensation. Opposite party provided the necessary applications and other papers. But Opposite party was reluctant to sanction compensation as provided and finally on 26/03/2002 the opposite party informed complainant No. I that none of the complainants are entitled to get the claim amount. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was dismissed by our predecessor against which appeal was preferred by the complainant. The case was remitted back to the forum permitting the complaint to adduce evidence and for a fresh disposal. Even though Opposite party has not appeared on receipt of notice after remittal, version has been filed earlier.
The contentions in the version is as follows:
Opposite party admits the fact that complainant No. I, R C holder of the said Hero Honda Motor cycle has obtained a policy of insurance from the Opposite party for the period from 08/12/2000 to 07/12/2001. The fact that on 28/02/2001, the vehicle was sold to Complainant No. II was not known to the opposite party until the claim dated 21/02/2002 of the Ist complainant was lodged. The claim was lodged on the basis of the policy of insurance bearing No.3176110068258 which was valid for the period from 15/01/2002 to 14/01/2003 issued in the name of the Ist complainant. The statement of the complainant that while the policy was in force the vehicle was sold on 28/08/2001 to complainant No. II is false. According to Opposite party, complainant's admits that the vehicle was sold on 28/08/2001. So at the time of issuance of IInd Policy, admittedly the owner is Complainant No. II. Suppressing this fact the policy of insurance was taken on 14/01/2002 in the name of the first complainant. Complainant No. I has taken the policy in his name suppressing the fact that the vehicle was sold by him. This act amounts to fraud and misrepresentation. The say of the complainant that it was so done as per the advice of the Opposite party for the reason that the RC of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the IInd complainant is false. The parties has not intimated to the concerned - 3 - Regional Transport Officer about the sale and they have not taken any steps to change the name of the owner in the RC till 14/01/2002, when the policy of insurance was again taken. Opposite party admits the fact that the information with regard to the theft of the vehicle was informed by the IInd complainant. This information was given only after the claim for compensation was lodged by the Ist complainant. Opposite party also admits the fact that the necessary forms for making the claim was given by them to the Ist complainant. But that was done before the change of ownership was known to the Opposite party. On verification of the claim it was found that the case of the Ist complainant is that the IInd complainant was the rider, the person in possession and the owner of the vehicle at the time when it was stolen. It is wrong to state that both complainant's approached the Opposite party for getting the insurance policy. Since as per the policy of insurance, the owner of the vehicle is the Ist complainant and since the contract of insurance is between the Opposite party and Ist complainant, Opposite party is not bound to compensate the IInd complainant. There is no privity of contract between the second complainant and the opposite party. Hence the claim form which reveals that the IInd complainant is the owner of the vehicle cannot be entertained . The fact was intimated to both opposite parties. Further the say of the complainant that it was as per the advice of the Opposite party that the Ist complainant preferred the claim application is denied. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part.
The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A10 marked on the side of the Complainant Opposite party filed affidavit.
Issues for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties? 2. If so, What is the relief and costs? Points 1 & 2 The only question to be decided is whether the insurance company is liable to disburse the claim amount if the policy stands in the name of the previous owner and the subsequent purchaser has not taken any steps for making necessary change in the insurance certificate. We have carefully gone through all the relevant documents on record. It can be - 4 - seen that the period of previous policy was from 08.12.2000 to 07.12.2001. Vehicle was sold to 2nd complainant on 28/08/2001. Vehicle was again insured for the period 15/01/2002 to 14/01/2003. Insurance was again taken in the name of the Ist complainant itself. Vehicle was lost by theft on 15/02/2002. Admittedly at that time, the Ist complainant is the insurer. As per Sec 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the transferrer should apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance. The vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the complainant No.2 on 28/08/2001, but he did not get the change effected as per Sec 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. When the vehicle was again insured, Insurance was taken in the name of the previous owner itself. The contention of the complainant No.2 that it was done as per the advice of Opposite party is denied by the Opposite party and there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the complainant.
In Manden Singh Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd and Anr.1(2009) CPJ 158 NC Honourable N C has held that petitioner suppressing material fact of transfer of vehicle in his name and insures vehicle in the name of previous owner is not entitled to any refund. We are of the view that the dictum laid down in this case squarely applies to that one in hand.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the Opposite party has acted in accordance with law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party . Hence complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of July 2009.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
- 5 -
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Certificate of Registration No.102037 Ext. A2 - Copy of sale deed Ext. A3 - Cash receipt dated 28.08.2001 for Rs.34,000/- Ext. A4 – Certificate of Insurance of Motor Cycles Ext. A5 - First Information Report of Kerala Police dated 18.02.2002 Ext. A6 a – Declaration Ext. A6 – Motor claim Form of The New India Assurance Co Ltd Ext. A 7 – Details written Ext. A 8 – Letter from The New India Assurance Co Ltd dated 26/03/2002 Ext. A9 series – Letter from K.P. Nouphal, Advocate to Divisional Manager Ext. A10 – Letter from Advocate S.M. Unnikrishnan to Advocate K.P. Nouphal
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits
Nil Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
