DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 20th day of April, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member <br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.37/2006<br /> <br /> Shafeeque Babu,<br /> S/o.Saidalikutty,<br /> Kalathingal House,<br /> Kadannamanna.P.O,<br /> Mankada (Via), Malappuram - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office, <br /> Mannarkkad, Palakkad - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> Case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Toyoto Qualis PY 01S 5666 from M/s.Jaya Soaps, Pondicherry and subsequently the R.C. book and insurance was also transferred in his name. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.101205/31/0501010.<br /> <br /> On 24.8.2005 at about 6 a.m the said vehicle met with an accident near Viyyakurissi. Upon the said accident vehicle was totally damaged. The said incident was reported to Mannarkkad Police Station. On 28.8.2005 the surveyor of the opposite party one Mr.N.Unnikrishnan has inspected made a detailed a survey. Complainant has also submitted a claim form to the opposite party with all necessary particulars along with it. Later the vehicle<br /> : 2 : <br /> was taken to its authorised service centre at Moopan Motors Private Ltd., at Kochi. Another authorised surveyor of the opposite party one Mr.Santhosh had also made detailed survey from the said service centre. After repairing the vehicle Moopan Motors Pvt. Ltd. had given detailed bill of Rs.2,99,550/- towards cost of repair. The said bills were also given to the opposite party. Upon the production of the bill the opposite party advise the complainant to wait for few days for the satisfaction of the claim. To the surprise of the complainant on 31.1.2006 a letter was received from the opposite party repudiating the claim raising false and frivolous reasons. As per the letter the reasons for the repudiation of the claim were 1. the complainant had not complied with the required papers 2. The complainant has withdrawn the claim through a consent letter. The said two reasons are false and frivolous. Because complainant had submitted all the necessary documents prepared for the claim and he had never sent any letter withdrawing the claim. Agreed by the repudiation letter complainant sent a lawyer notice on 25.4.2006 asking the opposite party to satisfy the claim and also to compensate the mental agony suffered to the complainant. Opposite party had sent a reply stating some false allegation to repudiate the claim. As per the reply letter the policy is not in the name of complainant at the time of accident. According to opposite party policy is valid from 24.8.2005 only after 11:06 a.m. and hence they cannot satisfy the claim of accident to place at 24.8.2005 at 6 a.m. The said contention raised by the opposite party is not correct. It is raised only to defeat the claim of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions in the policy issued by the opposite party, the policy is effective from 00.00 O' clock on 24.8.2005 to midnight 25.5.2006. The accident took place within the valid period of policy. Hence opposite party cannot escape from the liability on that ground. Complainant alleges that since the policy is for the vehicle even if it is not transferred company is liable to indemnify the R.C. owner. Hence opposite<br /> : 3 : <br /> party have committed deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence he has approached before the forum seeking an order to direct the opposite party to pay the repairing cost of Rs.2,99,550/- the complainant as per the bills and also to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses incurred.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite party for their appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version denying all the allegation stated in the complaint. According to the opposite party policy is not in the name of complainant at the time of accident. According to the opposite party policy is valid from 24.8.2005 only after 11 a.m and hence they cannot satisfy the claim of accident took place on 24.8.2005 at 6 a.m. Opposite party admits that complainant has purchased Toyoto Qualis bearing No.PY 01S5666 and insurance policy was also changed into his name. It is true that Surveyors having inspected and assessed the damages of the vehicle. But the assessment was made without prejudice to entertainment of the claim and subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The survey report itself it is mentioned that the assessment is made without prejudice and subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is true that after repairing the vehicle complainant has submitted estimates and bills for settling the claim. Since the opposite party has no liability, the claim was repudiated and the same was duly intimated to the complainant. The reason for the repudiation was that accident has taken place on 24.8.2005 at about 6 a.m. Even though the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant with effect from 10.8.2005, the policy was transferred with an endorsement only on 24.8.2005 at 11:06 a.m after collecting the fees. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party's liability towards own damage to the transferee commences only after <br /> : 4 : <br /> the time of transfer. Since the opposite party has collected transfer fee only at 11:06 a.m on 24.8.2005, which is after accident opposite party has no liability to pay the own damage claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,99,550/- towards repairing costs and further sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses as claimed in the complaint. And this opposite party is not liable to pay the same to the complainant. Complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs.<br /> <br /> Both parties filed proof affidavits to substantiate their respective contentions. Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from the side of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of opposite party. Matter was heard.<br /> <br /> Photocopy of the policy issued by the opposite party was produced by the complainant before the forum but it was not marked. On perusal of the policy it is found that the policy was issued to the complainant with effect from 24.8.2005 00:00 O' clock. We have also perused the Ext.B4 produced from the side of opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party that accident happened at about 6 a.m on 24.8.2005 at Viyyakurissi. According to Ext.B4 the cause of accident stated in the claim form is genuine and carrying with the extend of damage. Opposite party had put forward a contention that the claim was repudiated just because accident has taken place at about 6 a.m but the policy was transferred with an endorsement only on 11.06 a.m after collecting the fees. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite party's liability towards own damage to the transferee commences only after the time of transfer. Since the opposite party has collected transfer fee only at 11.06 a.m. on 24.8.2005, which is after the accident opposite party has no <br /> : 5 : <br /> liability to pay the own damage claim. But no evidence was produced from the part of the opposite party to prove the above contention. Whereas the policy certificate shows that it is valid from 00:00 hours (midnight of 24.8.2005) itself. Hence we are of the view that the vehicle of the complainant had valid insurance coverage at the time of accident. The reason for the repudiation stated by the opposite party is without any basis. Hence opposite party has committed deficiency of service on their part. Ext.B4 produced by the opposite party is the survey report by Surveyor/Loss Assessor of the opposite party. He assessed the amount of total loss to the tune of Rs.2,08,526/- exclusive of taxes. Hence the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,08,526/- along with taxes as applicable at the time of accident. Moreover the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.2,99,550/- towards repairing costs. In the result the complaint is allowed. <br /> <br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,08,526/- plus taxes as applicable at the time of accident to the complainant along with an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and also Rs.500/- towards costs. Aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 8% interest for the aforesaid amount from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2007 <br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> : 6 : <br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Copy of lawyer notice<br /> Ext.A2 – Reply notice<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 – Circular issued by Regional office of opposite party dtd.20.4.04 to opposite party <br /> Ext.B2 – Motor claim form submitted by complainant <br /> Ext.B3 – Certificate issued by Mannarkkad Traffic Unit Police<br /> Ext.B4 – Survey report dtd.25.10.05<br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.500/- allowed as costs to the complainant