By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Car having No.KL-11-K-5961 from one Muhammed Bashgeer, Calicut. The registration certificate was changed to the name of the complainant on 9-1-06. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party with full coverage insurance. On 19-1-06 at about 4 P.M. the same car met with an accident at Wayanad. At the time of the accident the insurance policy was not changed to the name of the complainant. Policy was still in the name of Sri. Muhammed Basheer. The accident occurred on 10th day after the change of R.C. The statutory time limit of 14 days for changing the insurance policy to the name of the new R.C. owner was not over at the time of the accident. The complainant intimated the accident to the opposite party on 30-1-06 along with the copy of R.C. and policy. On 10-2-06 the complainant submitted the claim form, estimate of repairs and certificate issued by the S.I. of Police before the opposite party. On 7-3-06 complainant submitted before the opposite party another application for settling the claim along with a copy of the Power of Attorney given by Muhammed Basheer in favour of the complainant, empowering the complainant for meeting claim before the opposite party in regard to the loss and damage suffered to the vehicle due to the accident. In the first week of May 2006 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party repudiating the claim for the reason that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Aggrieved by this act of the opposite party the complainant filed the petition before the Forum seeking relief. Opposite party filed a version denying the allegations in the complaint. There is no default or negligence on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party, as the policy was issued to Sri. Muhammed Basheer. There is no privity of contract between the applicant and opposite party on the date of accident ie. 19-1-06. On the date of the accident there was no valid insurance policy in the name of M. Sivadasan, the owner of the Maruthi car. Averments in Para-4 are not applicable to the petitioner. Opposite party relies upon the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1996 SC 586 for denying the claim of the complainant. The Power of Attorney given by Sri. Muhammed Basheer to the complainant is null and void. Opposite party denies the averments in Para-7 of the complaint. There was no valid policy in the name of the complainant on the date of the accident. The applicant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the application. The bills showing expenses amounting to Rs.55895.19 submitted before the opposite party is not admitted by the opposite party. Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost. The points for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer or not? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition and if so relief to what extend? PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 to A18 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side. The complainant purchased a Maruthi car from one Muhammed Basheer. The registeration certificate was changed to the name of the complainant on 9-1-06. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party with full cover insurance. The insurance policy was in the name of Sri. Muhammed Basheer. On 19-1-06 at about 4 P.M. the said car met with an accident at Wayanad. The insurance policy was not changed to the name of the complainant at the time of accident. Opposite party points this fact and contents that the complainant was not opposite party’s consumer at the time of the accident. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. The R.C. was changed in the name of the complainant on 9-1-06. The accident occurred on 19-1-06. The statutory time limit of 14 days for changing the insurance policy in the name of the new R.C. owner was not over at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on the 10th day after the change of the R.C. The counsel for the complainant relied on a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In case Sri. Narayan Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2007 CPJ 289 NC, based on regulations which is a part of the India Motor Tariff Regulation which reads: “ on transfer of the vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner.” In this case the policyholder Muhammed Basheer has given a Power of Attorney to the new R.C. owner. The statutory time limit of 14 days for changing the insurance policy in the name of the new R.C. owner was not over at the time of the accident. But there was a valid full cover insurance during the same period. Taking all these facts into consideration we are of the opinion that the complainant will fall under the definition of Consumer. Point No.1 is thus proved. Point No.2:- Complainant purchased a Maruthi car from Muhammed Basheer and transferred the registration certificate in the name of the complainant on 9-1-06. The vehicle met with an accident on 19-1-06 10 days after the changing of the R.C. in the name of the new owner. There is a statutory time limit of 14 days for changing the insurance policy to the name of the R.C. owner. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. Complainant has produced Ext.A16 Power of Attorney given by Muhammed Basheer who is the policy holder. Another point to be noted that the dictum laid by the Hon’ble National Forum in IV 2007 CPJ 289 (NC) is that in light of Motor Tariff Regulation the benefits under the policy will automatically accrue to the new owner of transfer of vehicle and insurance company is liable to pay insurance amount along with interest and compensation further punity of cost is to be awarded for taking unjustified the stand in not disclosing India Motor Tariff Regulation. Circular issued in 1994 by the General Insurance Company with regard to transfer of vehicles and transfer of insurance benefits is in favour of the transferee. The said regulation reads as: “ on transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement. The circumstances and the dictum laid by the National Commission and the Circular of 1994 issued by General Insurance Company with regard to transfer of vehicles, all point out that the complainant is entitled for the relief. The complainant has produced estimate, actual bills incurred upon for repairing the vehicle. Complainant has claimed for an amount of Rs.55895.16. Ext.A1 copy of the R.C. shows that the month and year of manufacturing as April 2000. In our opinion the vehicle met with an accident on 2006, six years after the manufacturing date. Naturally if the claim is to be allowed opposite party would have calculated after depreciation. We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get 50% of the claim amount, which will come to Rs.27,947/-. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.27,947/- along with a compensation of Rs.3000/- for the mental agony and hardship the complainant had to suffer and a cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of May 2009. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Photcopy of R.C. A2. Photocopy of Policy issued by to Muhammed Basheer dt. 24-8-05. A3. Photocopy ofletter dt. 30-1-2006. A4. Photocopy of Motor claim form. A5. Photocopy of Estimate of repairs dt. 20-1-06. A6. Photocopy of certificate issued by S.I. of Police, Padinharathara dt. 21-1-05. A7. Photocopy of letter dt. 10-2-06. A8. Photocopy of goods carrier record dt 20-1-06. A9. Photocopy of Bank receipt dt. 18-2-06. A10. Photocopy of Bank receipt dt. 16-3-06. A11. Photocopy of bill issued by Popular Vehicles dt. 31-1-06. A12. Photocopy of bill issued by Popular Vehicles dt. 28-2-06. A13. Photocopy of bill issued by Popular Vehicles dt. 16-3-06. A14 series ( 5 in Nos.) Photocopy of bill issued by Popular Vehicles dt. 16-3-06. A15. Photocopy of letter dt. 22-3-06. A16. Photocopy of Power of Attorney dt. 3-3-06. A17. Photocopy of letter dt. 7-3-06. A18. Photocopy of certificate of insurance issued by O.P. to the complainant dt. 16-3-06. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1. Sivadasan (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
......................G Yadunadhan B.A.
......................Jayasree Kallat M.A. | | 
