DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th day of February   2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 19/02/2014        

                                                      (C.C.No.25/2014)        

Rahmath,

W/o.Ibrahim.V,

Vayanadan, Akaloor Post,

Pazhayalakkidi,

Ottapalam, Palakkad                                    -        Complainant

(Adv.Vinod K Kayanat) 

Vs

1.Manager,

   Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

   9/82(12) KVM Plaza,

   Main Road, Ottapalam Post,

   Palakkad, Kerala- 679 101

(By Adv.A.R.V.Sankar)

2.Sub Regional Transport Officer,

   Ottapalam Post,

   Ottapalam

(By  Addl.Govt.Pleader Jayan C Thomas)       -        Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of the complaint.

The complainant is the registered  owner of Maruti Swift VDI bearing Registration No.KL-51/D/1234. The complainant purchased the vehicle from Mr.Faizal and submitted application before 2^nd opposite party to transfer  ownership. 2^nd opposite party handed over the transferred RC only on 23/11/13 eventhough transfer was effected on 1/11/13. On 18/11/2013 at 5.30 p.m. an accident happened  and caused   damage to vehicle. The fact was intimated to 1^st opposite party and produced all the relevant bills, Surveyor Report, documents and photos. He has spent an amount of Rs.22,472/- for repairing the  vehicle.    But 1^st opposite party denied the claim stating that the RC change was not intimated to them within 10 days of the transfer. Complainant  submitted that the change of ownership was   intimated to 1^st opposite party through phone. Since the transfer was effected from 1/11/13 and  accident was happened on 18/11/13 within the contract period stipulated in the  insurance policy. According to the complainant denial of claim amounts to deficiency in service from the part of  1^st opposite party.  Similarly the delay in handing over of RC is also amounts to deficiency in service from the part of 2^nd opposite party. Hence the complainant prays for a direction to pay Rs.22,472/- by 1^st opposite party as the insurance claim made by complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/-  as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by both opposite parties and cost of proceedings to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to both opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

1^st opposite party contented that there is no privity of contract  between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. As per the policy (Ext.A1) at the time of accident insured was  Faizal. He has not given any request to transfer policy in the name of complainant till 2/12/2013. The complainant filed application only on  2/12/2013 to transfer the policy. On that  date there was no damage to the vehicle.  As per Indian Motor  Tariff GR17 it is specifically noted that “in the case of transfer the transferee shall 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 the date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary change in his record and issue fresh certificate foil insurance”.

 Opposite party submitted that the word used in the Section is from the date of transfer not from the date of RC. There was no information about the transfer of ownership or purchase of vehicle. In this case transfer was effected on  1/11/13. Application should be given within 14 days i.e. 14/11/2013.  But the complainant approached 1^st opposite party to transfer policy only on 2/12/2013. Hence at the time of accident there was no contract between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. 1^st Opposite party denied   the averments of the complainant  that transfer of ownership was informed through phone. Hence there is no deficiency  in service from the part of 1^st  opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed as regards 1^st opposite party.

2^nd opposite party filed version stating that there  is no deficiency in  service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. They submitted that on receipt of application to transfer the vehicle,   2^nd opposite party has taken only a reasonable and permitted time to do all the formalities which is expected to be done by the Govt. Department. 2^nd opposite party submitted that complainant filed application on 4/11/2013 for effect of transfer of ownership and cancelling hire purchase agreement of the vehicle. At the time of the receipt of application,  the complainant has intimated that she will collect the records by hand from the office. After  completion of  official formalities, the RC and other related documents were handed over to the complainant on 22/11/2013 itself. Opposite party further submitted that as per standing orders from the Head of the department, application for various services can be received with or without self addressed cover. The applications which are having self addressed cover will be served to the applicant by post. The applications which are not enclosed with self addressed  cover and stamp it is presumed that these applicants are willing to collect his or her documents directly from the office after completion of service. In this case complainant has not attached  self addressed cover. She collected her documents directly on 22/11/13.   Hence there is no undue delay and deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Complainant is examined as PW1, 1^st opposite party examined as DW1 and 2^nd opposite party examined as DW2. Ext.A1 to A8 marked  on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B8 marked from the side of opposite parties.

Issues are to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?

Heard both parties.

Issues 1 & 2

  We have perused the documents on record.  At the time of accident Faizal is the RC owner. Complainant submitted that the information about the change of RC was given to 1^st opposite party through phone. But nothing is produced to prove their contention. As per records at the time of accident there was no contract between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. Hence we cannot attribute the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

As per Ext.A4 and B8 2^nd opposite party issued RC in the name of complainant only on 23/11/2013.  But  Ext.B5 shows that the desptach of RC and related documents was on 22/11/2013. In the affidavit and version of 2^nd opposite party, admitted that the RC was handed over to the complainant on 22/11/2013. No such entry on 23/11/2013 in Ext.B5. The entries shown in the documents produced by 2^nd opposite party are not tally with each other. 2^nd opposite party submitted the reason for delay of issuing RC is that the complainant has not produced cover or stamp along with the application. Complainant also admitted the fact while cross examination. Complainant deposed that Rm³ t\cn«v h¶v ssI¸Ámsa¶v ]dªp. 23/11/2013 \mWv Rm³ t]mbn BÀ.kn.hm§n. 22/11/2013\v Rm³ BÀ.kn.hm§m³ th­n  t]mbncp¶p. A¶v  RC ready Bbncp¶nÃ.  2^nd opposite party admitted at the time of cross examination that RC delivery sNt¿­ Znhkw 11/11/13 \mWv.  No evidence is adduced by 2^nd opposite party to prove that  the RC is ready for delivery on or before 11/11/13. Moreover there are some discrepancies also found in the documents produced by 2^nd opposite party. By delaying the registration process 2^nd opposite party deprived the right of complainant to get the claim for own damages from 1^st opposite party.

Hence, we are of the opinion  that 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. 1^st opposite party is exonerated from liability. 

In the result complaint is partly allowed. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay 18,000/- (Eighteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 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 28^th   day of February  2015.

      Sd/-

                     Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                     Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photcopy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle dated 8/3/2013

Ext.A2  – Photocopy of the insurance policy of the vehicle dated 02/12/203

Ext.A3  –  Photocopy of RC of vehicle No.KL-51D-1234 in the name of Faizal

               dated 23/3/2013

 Ext.A4 - Photocopy of RC of vehicle No.KL-51D-1234 in the name of Rahmath

            dated 23/11/2013

Ext.A5 – Accident Certificate dated 20/11/13 issued by SI of Police, Nemmara

Ext.A6 – Photocopy of Driving License of V.Ebrahim

Ext.A7 series – Job card retail cash memo issued by AM Motors in the name of

                        Rahmath dated 30/11/13

Ext.A8 – Survey report alongwith photos issued by Surveyor MV Viju dated

             10/12/2013.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Standard Proposal form for Liability only policy

Ext.B2 – Certified true copy of Insurance policy in the name of Rahmath dated

             2/12/2013

Ext.B3 – Vehicle Inspection Report

Ext.B4 –Copy of RC particulars of Vehicle No.KL51D-1234 issued by Joint RTO,

             Ottapalam dated 4/9/2014

Ext.B5 –True copy of extract of dispatch register 

Ext.B6 – Photocopy of computer extract of inward/outward reference No.50521 

Ext.B7 –Photocopy of computer extract of inward/outward reference No.50523 

Ext.B8 – Photocopy of computer extract of inward/outward reference No.50526 

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Rahmath

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 – U.Ravi

DW2 – C.R.Manmadan Nair

Cost allowed

Rs.2000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings