By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant purchased a Toyota Qualis Car No.KL-16/4464 from one Abdul Rasheed on 23-7-2006. The vehicle was insured with opposite party and the policy was in the name of Abdul Rasheed for the period 22-7-2006 to 21-7-2007. It is submitted that complainant and Abdul Rasheed had informed opposite party about the transfer of the vehicle on 24-7-2006 and requested opposite party to transfer the insurance policy in favour of complainant. Then opposite party directed the complainant to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle after effecting the transfer in the Registration Certificate. On 31-7-2006 the Registration Certificate was transferred in favour of complainant. On the same day complainant had entered into a hire purchase agreement with ICICI Bank Ltd., and complainant was compelled to hand over the original Registration Certificate to the Bank for the purpose of the loan. On 08-8-2006 complainant and Abdul Rasheed approached opposite party with a photostat copy of the Registration Certificate book showing the transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant. But opposite party denied to transfer the insurance policy and insisted that complainant should produce the original Registration Certificate book. While so, making efforts to produce the original Registration Certificate book, on 20-3-2007 the vehicle was stolen. On report of theft of the vehicle, Vazhakkadu Police had registered crime No.91/2007 u/s 380 and 457 of I.P.C. The vehicle could not be recovered by police and the case was referred as undetected. Complainant preferred a claim along with necessary documents. But opposite party repudiated the claim. Hence this complaint.

2. Bereft of the superfluous averments opposite party admits the issuance of own damage cover policy for the vehicle during the period 22-7-2006 to 21-7-2007. It is submitted by opposite party that the said policy was issued in favour of Sri.Abdul Rasheed and that complainant not being the insured cannot allege any deficiency in service against opposite party. It is further submitted that neither Sri. Abdul Rasheed nor the complainant had informed the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to opposite party. The averments in the complaint that Abdul Rasheed and complainant informed about the transfer of ownership and requested for transfer of policy and that opposite party directed to produce the Registration Certificate after effecting transfer in the Registration Certificate are denied by opposite party as false. It is also stated that opposite party is unaware whether complainant has entered into any hire purchase agreement with ICICI Bank Ltd. Opposite party denies the statement of complainant that he together with Abdul Rasheed approached opposite party with the photo copy of the Registration certificate book of the vehicle and requested for transfer of the policy in favour of complainant. It is submitted that on transfer of ownership of the vehicle, Mr. Abdul Rasheed has lost and forfeited his insurable interest upon the vehicle in regard to own damage cover. That complainant not being the insured and in the absence of privity of contract opposite party is not liable to indemnify for the loss of the vehicle. The claim of complainant for Rs.4,00,000/- is without basis. That there is no deficiency in service and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

3. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A6 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

Admittedly at the relevant time of accident the insurance policy stood in the name of previous owner, Sri. Abdul Rasheed and the registration of the vehicle was in the name of the complainant. Opposite party has denied the claim contending that by transfer of ownership. Sri. Abdul Rasheed has lost the insurable interest upon the vehicle and that though the vehicle is purchased by complainant, as the policy was not transferred to his name, there is no privity of contract with the complainant. Thus opposite party has taken a stand of denying the claim to the policy holder as well as the Registration Certificate owner.

6. The complainant has reiterated and affirmed the averments in the complaint regarding the requests and efforts made by him and the previous owner to get the policy transferred to his name. These contentions have been denied by opposite party who submits that neither complainant nor Sri. Abdul Rasheed approached opposite party and informed about transfer of the policy Ext.A1 which is the photo copy of the Registration Certificate shows that the vehicle was transferred to the name of complainant on 31-7-2006. On the same day the finance endorsement in favour of ICICI Bank is also made. This is signed by the registering authority on 03-8-2006. These endorsements show that the case of complainant that the original Registration Certificate was handed over to the Bank to be true and probable. There is nothing to disbelieve the submissions made on the side of the complainant that they made earnest efforts to get the policy transferred into the name of complainant.

7. The main point that arises for analysation is whether opposite party was justified in dishonouring the claim. Even if the policy is not transferred into the name of the complainant opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss during the currency of the policy, as the subject matter of the insurance is the vehicle, and not any particular person. Opposite party has no case that they are willing to pay the amount to the previous owner in whose name the policy stands. The claim of complainant is denied on the contention that there is no privity of contract. Insurable interest in a thing is not restricted to it's ownership alone. A person who may be in possession without title or even a finds of goods may insure the property. The position is now well settled by the Apex Commission in it's various judgements such as Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (R.P.No.556/02 decided on 22-5-2007), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subash Chand Khataria and Anr (2008(2) CPJ 324 NC). The dictum has been well applied by the Station Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Himachal Pradesh_ in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mrs. Santosh Kumari (2009 CTJ 576 (CP) SCDRC.) The Apex Commission has observed that the company's stand not to pay to the policy holder and also to the registered owner is nothing out negative approach. That if this argument is to be accepted, during the transition period neither the seller nor the buyer can claim insurance amount and the Insurance Company can be enriched. Such stand taken by Insurance Company is highly unjustifiable especially when we consider that the subject matter of insurance which is a motor vehicle, are goods which frequently change hands in the ordinary parlance of commerce.

8. Ext.A2 and Ext.A4 prove and establish that the vehicle is lost by theft. Then opposite party ought to have indemnified the complainant on the basis of total loss. Opposite party has repudiated the claim on unjustifiable grounds which is deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service.

9. Point (ii):-

The claim of complainant is Rs.4,00,000/- being the Insured Declared value of the vehicle during the currency of the policy. This claim is resisted by opposite party contending that though the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4 lakhs the vehicle is of 2003 model and has run 99,794 kms. as on 21-7-2006. We are unable to appreciate this argument. It has been held by the Apex Court in Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. (2008 CTJ 971(SC) CP) that the Insurance Company is bound by the insured declared value. As the company had accepted the value of the vehicle as 4 lakhs on date of issuance of policy we are of the view that complainant is entitled to this amount for the loss sustained during the currency of the policy. We consider that complainant is also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum upon this amount from the date of complaint till payment, along with costs of Rs.1,000/- which would meet the ends of justice.

10. In the result we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees 4 lakhs) along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 7th day of October, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of Certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle No.KL-16-4464.

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the First Information Report dated, 01-04-2007 prepared by

K. Rafeeq, S.I. of Police, Vazhakkad.

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Policy No.101001/31/06/01/00004628

issued by opposite party to Abdul Rasheed.

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of Final report submitted by C.I. Of Police Kondotty

before Hon'ble JFCM Court, Malappuram.

Ext.A5 : Notice given by C.I. Of Police, Kondotty to the complainant.

Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the order in C.C.No.45/2006 dated, 17-5-2008

pronounced by this Forum.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3

Ext.B1 : Certified true copy of the Policy No.101001/31/06/01/00004628

issued by opposite party to Abdul Rasheed.

Ext.B2 : Computer print receipt for Rs.16,233/- dated, 21-7-2006 from opposite party to Abdul Rasheed.

Ext.B3 : Certified true copy of the Policy No.101001/31/06/02/00003104

issued by opposite party to Abdul Rasheed.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER