IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 30/2012 (Filed on 03.02.2012)
Between:
Dhanapalan Nair,
Vishnu Nivas,
Choottayil P.O.,
Kilimanoor,
Chirayinkeezhu Taluk.
Thiruvananthapuram Dist. … Complainant.
(By Adv. S. Ajith Prabhav)
And:
1. The reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., represented by its
Divisional Manager, First Floor,
Vishnu Buildings, K.P. Vallon-
Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin.
(By Adv. K. Saileshkumar)
2. UAE Exchange, Near KSRTC-
Bus Station,NH- 47, Attingal,
Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
(By Adv.Rabi George Mathew)
3. Jaleel, Staff, UAE Exchange-
of –do-- --do--. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:- Complainant purchased a Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg. No.KL-03 M 6654 from his brother in law. The ownership of the car was transferred in the name of the complainant on 09.11.2010. 1st opposite party is the insurer of the vehicle. 2nd opposite party is the corporate agent of the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party is an employee of the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle is insured with the 1st opposite party vide policy No.2213402311002696 for the period from 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2011. On 15.04.2011 the said vehicle met with an accident. In the accident complainant’s vehicle sustained extensive damages. The accident was reported to the 2nd opposite party. As per the direction of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party, complainant lodged a claim through the previous owner of the vehicle, for the reason that the policy is still in the name of the previous owner due to the mistake of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But the 1st opposite party rejected the claim on the ground that the ownership of the vehicle is already transferred to the complainant but the policy is in the name of the previous owner. Rejection of the claim by the opposite parties has caused great hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting compensation of ` 1,14,545 along with cost of the proceedings.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. 1st opposite party filed version with the following contentions. 1st opposite party admit the insurance policy to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-03 M 6654. But the insured violated the policy conditions. But the insured sold the vehicle to the complainant on 09.11.2010 but the name in the policy was not changed. So on the date of alleged accident, the insured was not the owner of the above said vehicle. Since the insured had already sold the vehicle to another person and the transferee has not transferred the insurance policy in his name there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the transferee therefore the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation. There is no deficiency of service from the 1st opposite party. Hence the 1st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. 2nd and 3rd opposite party filed joint version with the following contentions: They admit the fact that the vehicle was insured through them. But they are not aware of the alleged sale as claimed by the complainant. There is no mistake or error in issuing the insurance policy. The policy was issued to the owner of the vehicle at the time of issuing the policy. It is wrong to allege that these opposite parties mistakenly renewed the policy in the name of the previous owner. There is no deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW’s 1 and 2 and Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, 1st opposite party filed argument notes and both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The allegation of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Alto Car from his brother-in-law. The ownership of the said car was transferred in the name of the complainant. But the insurance policy got renewed in the name of the previous owner by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties mistakenly. Vehicle damaged in an accident took place on 15.04.2011. Insurance claim was lodged but it was repudiated by the insurance company on the finding that the insured was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. Hence complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the policy certificate issued by 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the retail invoice from A.G.T. Motors. Ext.A3 is the repudiation letter from 1st opposite party. Ext.A4 is the registration certificate in the name of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, contention of the 1st opposite party is that since the insured had already sold the vehicle to another person and the transferee has not transferred the insurance policy in his name and hence there is no privity of contract between the 1st opposite party and the transferee, therefore the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation.
10. In order to prove the contention of the 1st opposite party, the Branch Service Manager filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the authorization letter in favour of DW1. Ext.B2 is the insurance certificate cum policy schedule.
11. The contention of the second and third opposite parties is that there is no mistake or error in issuing the insurance policy. The alleged change of ownership of the vehicle was never informed to them. The policy was issued to the owner of the vehicle. It is wrong to allege that these opposite parties renewed the policy in the name of the previous owner mistakenly. So they are not liable to the complainant and they have not committed any deficiency in service.
12. In order to prove the contentions of the second and third opposite parties, the Branch Manager of the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he was examined as DW2. No documents were produced.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the one and only dispute between the parties is with regard to the insurable interest. According to the complainant, as per the advice of second and third opposite parties, he had made a claim through the previous owner, because the policy was mistakenly issued to the previous owner. But it was repudiated by the first opposite party. As per Ext. A4, it is evident that the ownership of the vehicle is changed in the registration certificate in favour of the complainant on 09.11.2010. The alleged accident took place on 15.04.2011 i.e. after 5 months from the date of transfer of registration. On that date, the insurance of the vehicle in question bearing registration No. KL-03M/6654 stood in the name of the previous owner. Ext. A1 policy certificate shows that the policy had coverage from 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2011.
14. As per Sec.157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, the transferee shall made an application for transfer within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the vehicle 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 and insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to transfer of insurance. The vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the complainant on 09.11.2010, but he did not get the change effected in the insurance policy in terms of Sec. 157(2) of the M.V. Act. However, the complainant renewed the policy in the name of the previous owner. The policy is renewed on 09.12.2010 and is in the name of the previous owner. The allegation of the complainant that the second and third opposite parties were duly informed about the change of ownership and they ware mistakenly renewed the policy in the name of the previous owner. But the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that he had requested the second opposite party to change the name in the insurance certificate.
15. The date of commencement of the insurance is from 10.12.2010 whereas the alleged accident was on 15.04.2011, i.e. after more than 5 months from the date of renewal of insurance. So the complainant had enough time to get it rectified even though an error occurred from the second and third opposite parties. Therefore, complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle.
16. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant and stood in favour of the previous owner on account of which complainant is not entitled to make any claim against the insurance company.
17. Based on the above said findings and observation and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Kamal Tours and Travels reported in 2011 CJ 970 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Goli Sridhar and another reported in 2012 CJ 380, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to make any claim against the insurance company. In the circumstances, we find no irregularity or deficiency of service against the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Dhanapalan Nair.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Policy certificate issued by 1st opposite party.
A2 : Retail invoice dated 28.05.2011 for ` 59,545 issued
from A.G.T. Motors, Kalanjoor.
A3 : Repudiation letter from 1st opposite party.
A4 : Copy of certificate of registration in the name of the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Rajeshkumar. P.K.
DW2 : Shibily. S.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Authorization letter dated 26.06.2012 executed by the
first opposite party in favour of Rajeshkumar. Ext.B2 is
the insurance certificate cum policy schedule.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Dhanapalan Nair, Vishnu Nivas, Choottayil P.O.,
Kilimanoor, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk.
Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
(2) Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd., First Floor, Vishnu Buildings, K.P. Vallon Road,
Kadavanthara, Cochin.
(3) UAE Exchange, Near KSRTC Bus Station,NH- 47,
Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
(4) The Stock File.
