IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 06.07.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member) in
C.C.No.138/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Kamarudheen, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Thazhachayil Lekshom Veedu, Branch Office,
Kakkazhom, Near Pitchu Iyyer Junction,
Ambalappuzha. Opp. Seematty Theatre, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.S.Ramakrishnan) (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Ace bearing No.KL-4U/159. The said vehicle, on 9th October 2009 met with an accident at Chavara and sustained extensive damage. At the time of the accident, the said vehicle was holding a valid insurance with the opposite party. At the time of obtaining the insurance one Mustafa was the owner of the vehicle, and hence the insurance policy stands in his name. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party for the insurance amount. A commissioner was appointed by the opposite party who submitted a report to the effect that an amount of beyond Rs.1,27,000/-(Rupees one lac twenty seven thousand only) was required to repair the vehicle. Notwithstanding this, the opposite party did not settle the claim with the complainant. The complainant was constrained to cause to sending a lawyer notice; still the opposite party was reluctant to respond. The service of the opposite party is fraught with deficiency. The opposite party inflicted mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent the opposite party appeared before this Forum, and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party duly entertained the claim of the complainant, and the complainant was required to produce some inevitable documents as to the claim repeatedly. Yet the complainant was least cared to comply with the opposite parties request. On being informed the accident in question the opposite party deputed a surveyor for spot inspection. The surveyor submitted the concerned report with the opposite party. Yet the complainant was not prepared to submit the duly completed claim form in time. The opposite party even sent letters. The complainant submitted the claim form only on 18th December 2009. The surveyor went to the work shop to assess the actual damage. By this time the vehicle was already got repaired and the surveyor was denied the opportunity to assess the damage of the vehicle. The opposite party issued several letters to the insured stating the circumstance as to the surveyor's helplessness to assess the damage of the vehicle, and sought clarification with regard to separate persons as owner and insured of the vehicle in question. The complainant never tendered any clarification. The complainant is disentitled to the damages inasmuch as the policy stands in the name of the transferor. The policy has to be transferred within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle, or else the subsequent owner would not entitle to any compensation, the opposite party forcefully argues. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party affirms.
2. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1, and the documents Exbts. A1 to A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite party Exbts. B1 to B11 were marked.
3. Taking into consideration the contentions of the parties the issues come up before us for consideration is as follows:-
(1) Whether the non-transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant absolves the opposite party from its liability to honor the complainant's claim?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
The accident or the subsistence of the policy is obviously not challenged. According to the opposite party the complainant has not submitted the claim form in time. Besides, the complainant was not the insured of the vehicle. Though the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant, the policy still remains in the name of the transferor of the vehicle. We meticulously went through the materials put on record. First of all, we are persuaded to look into the contention in respect of the non-filing of the claim form. On a plain perusal of the version submitted by the opposite party, it seems as if the said contention is self-contradictory. At one point viz. at the threshold of the version itself the opposite party avers that it has entertained the claim submitted by the complainant. At a later stage the opposite party contends that despite repeated insistence, the complainant did not submit the claim form. However, it is to be noted that the momentous contention taken out by the opposite party is that even though the vehicle was transferred to the complainant, the policy in respect of the vehicle in question taken out in the former owner's name was not transferred in favor of the complainant even after the expiry of the mandatory period of 14 days. To this point, the counsel for the complainant vehemently argues that the non-transfer of the policy in respect of the vehicle in question is not a valid ground to deny the complainant's claim. The complainant's counsel took us through the decision reported in 2011(1) KHC SW 18(SC) in respect of the said point. We anxiously perused the said decision so opposite party produced. We are of the considered view that the said decision is applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. In view of the said decision, we have no hesitation to concur with the contention of the complainant counsel that the complainant is entitled to the damages from the opposite party for the damage his vehicle sustained in the accident.
For the forgoing discussion, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of the submission of the claim form by the complainant before the opposite party till its realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of date of this order.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Kamarudheen (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the notice issued to the opposite party dated, 05.11.2009
Ext. A2 - The acknowledgment card
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext. B1 - The copy of the Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule
Ext. B2 - The Motor (Spot) Survey Report dated, 14.10.2009
Ext. B3 - The copy of the letter issued to the opposite party dated, 17.12.2009
Ext. B4 - The Motor Survey Report dated, 18.12.2009
Ext. B5 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated, 03.11.2009
Ext. B6 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated, 09.11.2009
Ext. B7 - The Motor Claim Form
Ext. B8 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated, 22.12.2009
Ext. B9 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated, 02.03.2010
Ext. B10 - The letter issued by the opposite party dated, 10.06.2010
Ext. B11 - The Circular dared, 21.06.2005
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
