O R D E R

Sri. P.Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainants filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that the mother and the 2^nd complainant is the wife of her son Sishirakumar and he who died on 14.05.2014.  As a result a motor accident occurred on 11.05.2014 as the driver of a vehicle Reg.No.KL-31/B-3328.  According to the complainants, the vehicle involved in the incident was cover with insurance with 1^st opposite party and the deceased Sishirakumar was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the road accident.  It is contended that the deceased purchased the said vehicle from 3^rd opposite party a week prayer to the said accident.  At the time of accident, apart from the coverage of insurance policy the deceased was holding a valid driving licence.  It is stated that even though the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance, the 1^st opposite party did not accept the valid claim of personal benefit accident claim of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainants and the opposite parties repudiated their claim.  According to the complainants as the legal heirs of the deceased the complainant have every right to get the personal accident benefit of Rs. 1 lakh from opposite parties 1 and 2.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to direct 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to realise as Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as the personal accident benefit of the deceased Sishirakumar compensation etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint of the complainant and issue notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  Opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their version.  The 3^rd opposite party received the notice but not turned up hence 3^rd opposite party declared exparte in this case.

                   4. The version of opposite party 1 and 2 are as follows:  According to them, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that opposite party 1 and 2 had issued an insurance policy No.44300/31/2015/1942 to a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL31/B-3128 valid from 06.05.2014 to 05.05.2015.  The said policy was issued in favour of one Jaison Varghese, Nellikkomathu Vilayil, Kattanam.  According to them, it is the duty of the insured concerned to inform the details of the incident to them.  In the present case the insured did not comply these express conditions in the policy.  So that the insurer denies the liability to indemnified the insured.  These opposite parties again contended that if the deceased Sishirakumar purchased the above said vehicle from the 3^rd opposite party.  It is the duty of the said purchaser (transferee) to inform the insurer with regard to the said transfer.  In this case, no such intimation was received by them.  These opposite parties specifically contended that they undertake to pay Rs.1 lakh in case of the death of the owner-driver of the vehicle but in this case the said Sishirakumar was not the owner-driver of the vehicle insured.  According to them, the demand of the said Personal Benefit Scheme and the rejection of the claim was also false.  They again stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and the complaint is premature one.  The opposite parties prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

                   5. When we peruse the complaint, version and records produced before us we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
3. Whether the complainants are eligible for the relief claimed?

         6. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the 1^st complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A6.  Subsequently Ext.A6 also marked.  On the side of opposite party 1 and 2 Ext.B1 and B1(a) also marked.  Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.398/14 dated 13.05.2014 of Kidangoor Police Station.  Ext.A2 is the copy of Death Certificate dated 23.05.2014.  Ext.A3 is the vehicle sale contract dated 04.05.2014.  Ext.A4 is the copy of insurance certificate dated 06.05.2014.  Ext.A5 is the copy of driving licence of the deceased.  Ext.A6 is the copy of R.C. Book of Jaison Varghese.  On the other side Ext.B1 and B1(a) marked.  Ext.B1 is the certified true copy of policy with conditions.  Ext.B1(a) is the liability only policy.  The above Ext.A4 and Ext.B1 are one and same.  But no oral evidence adduced.

          7. According to PW1, she deposed in chief examination more or less as per the tune of her complaint.  It is deposed that her son died on 14.05.2014 due to a motor accident happened on 11.05.2014 and a motor accident case has been registered by Kidangoor Police Station as Crime No.398/14. It is deposed that the deceased Sishirakumar purchased the said vehicle on 04.05.2014 from 3^rd opposite party and the accident occurred on 11.05.2014.  According to the testimony of PW1, the said vehicle was having a valid insurance policy with opposite party 1 and 2 at the time of the said motor accident and as the owner/driver of the vehicle he is eligible to get the personal benefit scheme as stated above.

          8. Though the opposite party 1 and 2 did not adduced any oral evidence on their part they produced and marked Ext.B1 and B1(a).  As per Ext.B1, it is clear that the vehicle was insured by one Jaison Varghese with the opposite party 1 and 2 and at the time of incident the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy with the said Jaison Varghese.  Ext.B1(a) is the explanation of the “liability only policy”.  As per Page 2 of B1(a) it is stated, “This cover is subject to

(a) the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;

(b) the owner-driver is the insured named in this policy”. 

After the completion of the evidence of both sides, we heard both parties.

        9. Point No.1:-  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party seriously contended that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on certain grounds.  One of the main contentions of the opposite party is that the deceased Sishirakumar is not an insured of opposite party 1 and 2.  Another contention is that there is no cause of action arised against opposite party 1 and 2 as far as the son of the 1^st complainant concerned.  It is true that the son of the 1^st complainant and the husband of the 2^nd complainant died due to a motor bike accident, which was occurred on 11.05.2014 and died subsequently on 14.05.2014 due to the said accident.  It is also come out in evidence to see that at the time of the said accident the deceased was the owner of the vehicle we can safely arrived a conclusion to this effect and rely Ext.A3 in this aspect.  Ext.A3 is the original sale agreement of the said vehicle between the 3^rd opposite party and the deceased.  When we go through Ext.B1(a) or Ext.A4, it is clear that a valid insurance policy was in force with 3^rd opposite party related to the vehicle involved in accident. Considering the above facts we can safely arrived a conclusion that the case is maintainable before this Forum.  Point No.1 found in favour of the applicant.

          10. Point Nos. 2 & 3:- The opposite party 1 and 2 in this case have a specifically case to the effect that the deceased was not an insured of the opposite parties and due to these aspect the deceased was not eligible for any benefit at all.  We do admit that at the time of the motor accident the deceased was not the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-31/B-3328.  It is clear from Ext.A6 copy of the R.C Book.  At the time of incident, the above said Jaison Varghese was the registered owner.  At this juncture, we would like to peruse Ext.A3.  As per Ext.A3, the above said vehicle was transferred to the deceased on 06.05.2014 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/-.  So we can come to a conclusion that the sale is affected and the vehicle was successfully in the possession of the deceased and he is deemed to the owner of the vehicle.  It is true that the opposite party strongly contended that if a transfer of the vehicle is affected, it is the duty of the transferee to inform the transfer to the insurance concerned.  As per the Insurance Act it is clear that a grace period is allowed to the transferee to inform the details of the transfer to the insurance company.  Even according to the version of opposite party 1 and 2 the grace period is 14 days. Hence it is clear that motor accident occurred within the grace period granted to the transferee.  Apart from all these it is crystal clear that at the time of accident the deceased was the rider of the said motor cycle.  Even assuming that he is not at all a dejury owner of the vehicle at the time of accident he was the rider (Driver) of the vehicle on 11.05.2014 and subsequently on 14.05.2014 he died due to the said accident.  As we stated earlier as per Ext.B1(a), the cover of the insurance is subject to the owner-driver of the insured vehicle and the name of the owner-driver should be named in the policy.  The next condition is that the owner-driver holds an effective driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of Central motor Vehicle Rules.  As far as this case is concerned some conditions are not in favour of the complainants.  But at the same time, we can safely arrived a conclusion that the deceased was the defacto owner of the vehicle and when he was riding the said vehicle the accident occurred and subsequently he died.  As per Ext.B1(a) the cover of this insurance is only eligible to a driver who is having a valid driving licence.  As far as this case is concerned the deceased was the rider of the motor bike at the time of incident and he was holding a valid driving licence as per Ext.A5.  Considering this fact, even if the complainants filed a claim petition before opposite parties 1 and 2 they ought not to be considered their claim as per the Provisions of Ext.B1(a).  In order to take a decision at this stage we should apply the mind of social justice and the purpose of social legislation.  The term insurance is actually mean for facing for an unforeseen risk.  If it be so, there is no justification on the part of opposite party 1 and 2 to discard the claim of the legal representative of the deceased in this case.

          The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that at the time of the accident the deceased was not an insured of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party hence the deceased or his legal representatives have any claim against opposite party 1 and 2.  When we refer Central Motor Vehicles Act Sec.50 the transfer of ownership is stated clearly.  “The transfer of ownership:- (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,-

1. the transfer shall,-

1. In the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee.

            On the basis of this provision a 14 days is allowable to the transferee to effect the transfer of the vehicle.  As per the version of the opposite party 1 and 2 in Para 6 it is stated, “In case of transfer of the insured vehicle the transferee shall apply within fourteen days in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour”.  It is so clear that as per Ext.A3 the transfer is effected on 04.05.2014.  The accident of the vehicle was occurred on 11.05.2014 and the complainant’s son died on 14.05.2014 due to the result of the said motor accident.  In the light of Sec.50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and as per the version of the opposite party 1 and 2 the deceased had been enjoyed 14 days of grace period for the transfer.  It is clear that within the stipulated time of 14 days (i.e. after 7 days of transfer) the accident took place and after 10 days of the transfer the deceased died.  Hence we can come to a clear inference to the effect that even though the deceased did not transfer the vehicle in his name the accident and death caused within the stipulated time of transfer.  As we stated earlier, in the light of Ext.A3 the deceased became the owner of the vehicle which was involved in this accident and the said vehicle is covered with a personal accident scheme.  In the present case, nobody can think that the legal representatives of the deceased effect a transfer within the stipulated time of 14 days.  We cannot cast upon a laches on the part of these complainants for that aspect.  It is also taken in to account that in this case a young person purchased a motor bike for his domestic purpose and died as a result of a motor accident from the said vehicle itself after 7 days of its purchase.  The pathetic condition of the family and social status also has to be considered when we deciding this case.  If so the complainants as the legal representatives of the deceased applied for insurance benefit on the basis of Ext.A4 or Ext.B1.  The opposite party 1 and 2 has to entertain their application in lieu of application submitted by 3^rd opposite party in this case for issuing the accident benefit.  Considering the fact and nature of this case, we also arrived an opinion to the effect that in this case opposite party 1 and 2 purposefully did not repudiate the claim of the complainants.  It is true that on technical reasons they are not in a position to entertain the request of the complainants for the disbursement of insurance claim.  Hence opposite party 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants as prayed.  Therefore, in the light of the above finding we find that the complaint can be allowed partly.  Hence Point No. 2 and 3 found accordingly.

In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The complainants are directed to file a claim application for the personal accident benefit along with an application for transfer of ownership of insurance policy before the opposite party 1 within 15 days of the receipt of this order. 

2. Opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are directed to pay personal accident benefit claim of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainants within 15 days of receipt of the claim application as stated in relief (1) above.  If opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 fails to comply the relief within the stipulated time opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 are liable to pay an interest of 10% for the said Rs. 1 lakh from the date of complaint onwards, i.e. 25.06.2015 to the complainants.

3. Opposite party 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% from the date of order onwards.

4. No order for compensation.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of May, 2016.

                                                                                      (Sd/-)                            

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)      :      (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)          :      (Sd/-)    

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Santhamma. M.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of FIR in Crime No.398/14 dated 13.05.2014 of Kidangoor

         Police Station. 

A2 :  Copy of Death Certificate dated 23.05.2014. 

A3 :  Vehicle sale contract dated 04.05.2014. 

A4 :  Copy of insurance certificate dated 06.05.2014. 

A5 :  Copy of driving licence of the deceased. 

A6 :  Copy of R.C. Book of Jaison Varghese.                           

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Certified true copy of policy with conditions. 

B1(a) :  Liability only policy. 

                                                                                              (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Santhamma. M.M., Saigal Bhavanam, Mithrapuram,

          Paranthal.P.O., Peringanadu Village, Adoor Taluk.

2. Sheena Yesodharan, Kamalabhavanam,

         Arunoottimangalam.P.O., Vettiyoor Village,

          Mavelikkara Taluk.

3. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.,

          Pathanamthitta Branch.

4. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.,

          V.V. Archade, Pulamon-Kottarakkara Branch.

5. Jaison Varghese, Nellikkomathuvilayil,

          Kattanam, Mavelikkara.

6. The Stock File.