KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 34/06 JUDGMENT DATED : 11/7/08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.M/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd., No.3, Middleton Street, P.O. Box No.9229., Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 071, represented by its Chairman. : APPELLANTS 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch No.1, P.B.No.60, Soundarya Buildings, MG Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001, represented by its Branch Manager The appellants 1 & 2 are represented by its Divisional Manager, M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.I St.Hoseph’s Press Building, Vahuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram 695 014. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs 1. V.Jayadhar, Sreevihar, Matrika Nagar, Uliyakovil P.O., Kollam 781 019. : RESPONDENTS 2. The Tariff Advisory Committee, Ador House, 1st Floor, 6, K.Dubash Marg, Mumbai – 4000 023. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in OP.No.535/02 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram are under orders to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.1,759/ with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization along with cost of Rs.1,000/- and it is aggrieved by the above said directions that the present appeal is filed by the said opposite parties wherein we are called upon to decide the correctness of the order dated 8/9/05 passed by of the Forum below. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details before the Forum was that he had purchased a car on 13/6/2001 from one Smt.Nisha and the ownership was transferred on21/8/01. The existing comprehensive insurance policy was also transferred to the name of the complainant on payment of Rs.50/- collected by the 2nd opposite party. It was the specific case of the complainant that at the time of renewal of policy, the opposite parties denied the No Claim Bonus without any reason and collected full premium from him and as such he had suffered a loss of Rs.1,759/- towards 35% No Claim Bonus discount. Though he had requested the opposite parties to allow him the eligible discount, the opposite parties did not heed to his request and as such the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,759/- towards N.C.B along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 3.The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed joint version where in it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable and the complainant was not eligible to get any discount towards No Claim Bonus. It was submitted that as per the Tariff Advisory Committee directions, the complainant was entitled to get the benefit of No Claim Bonus on his renewed policy only and it should be on his own entitlement. It was also contended that since the vehicle was not in the possession of the complainant for 12 months he was not eligible to get No Claim Bonus on the transferred policy. Claiming that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have acted only according to the existing law, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. 4. The 3rd opposite party also filed version and it was contended that no relief was sought against and it was prayed that the complaint is to be dismissed as against the 3rd opposite party. 5. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite parties, Exts.P1 to P6 and D1. 6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the 1st respondent/complainant who appeared in person. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. Ext.D1 was also relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Regulation 10 and 19 (4) of the Tariff Advisory Committee were brought to our notice wherein as per Regulation 10 it was stated that on expiry and/or termination of the existing policy the transferee be eligible for bonus or subjected to Malus as per his own entitlement. The learned counsel very much emphased the wordings “ as per his own entitlement”. It is his very case that though the complainant had the comprehensive insurance policy transferred in his name and was eligible for the benefits, he would not be eligible for the benefits on expiry of the policy that was transferred in his name. The learned counsel further argued that the transferee would get bonus only after the completion of 12 months after taking policy in his own name. In such a circumstance it is the very case of the appellants that the complainant was not eligible to get the No Claim Bonus as per Ext.P4 policy and as such the Forum had gone wrong in directing the appellants to pay Rs.1,759 with interest and cost. 7. On the other hand, the 1st respondent/complainant vehemently submitted before us that the policy was transferred in his name and as per Ext.P3 it is clearly stated that all the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy remain unaltered even after the transfer of the policy. In such a circumstance it is his case that the stand of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in denying No Claim Bonus was arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. He submitted before us that usually people will forgo such legally eligible claim as the amount involved will be very less and the expenses that will be required for getting the amount through litigation will be much high. It is also submitted before us that the opposite parties generally the insurance companies are practicing unfair trade practice by denying the eligible claims of the transferees of the policies while purchasing second hand vehicles. He also tried to impress us that but for his fervent endeavour to get justice done, he would not have gone before the Forum for contesting the matter and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with cost. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the 1st respondent and on going through the records available for us we find that it is the undisputed case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the vehicle and transferred the comprehensive insurance policy in his name. Ext.P1 is the policy conditions and P1(a) is the policy issued in the name of the transferee. Ext.P3 is the document showing the change of ownership of vehicle and the policy transferred in the name of the complainant. It is noted that the policy is transferred with effect from 27/8/01 and the same expired on 9/5/02. It is also noted that the insurance company/ the 2nd opposite party had endorsed that “all other terms and conditions mentioned in the policy remain unaltered” . In such a circumstance it can only be inferred that the conditions in the original policy issued in the name of the transferor are binding on the subsequent purchaser (transferee). The 1st respondent has vehemently argued that Regulation 10 is applicable in the case of the complainant. It is noted that Regulation 10 of General Regulations reads thus: “on transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner” . But the learned counsel for the appellants has given emphasis to the remaining portion where it is stated : “However on expiry and/or termination of the existing Policy the transferee will be eligible for Bonus or subjected to Malus as per his own entitlement”. It is argued by him that the complainant will get the benefit of No Claim Bonus only if the vehicle is in his possession for 12 months during which no claim was made and for accruing the above benefit, the policy should be in his name for the continuous period of 12 months. It is also argued by him that the transferred policy and the vehicle were not in the possession of the complainant for 12 months and when the policy had expired he had to take a new policy in his own name. It is further submitted that the complaint would get No Claim Bonus only with respect to the new policy taken in his name and on completion of 12 months. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently relied on Regulation 19(4) which reads as follows : “Except for provisions made in G.R.10 the discount/loading shall follow the fortunes of the Original Insured and not the policy and in the event of transfer of interest in the policy from one insured to another the period of qualification for discount or application of loading so far as it affects the new insured shall commence afresh with effect from the date of renewal”. We find that the said provision of 19(4) is made applicable except for the provisions made in General Regulation 10. It is also to be noted that in Ext.P3 it is agreed that the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy remain unaltered. We also find that no such conditions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants do find a place either in the original policy or in the transferred one. The Hon’ble National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs T.Balaiah Chodari (I (2004) CPJ 67 (NC) has held that the courts/tribunals are only guided by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy which can be treated as final. In the present case also after having offered no claim bonus in the original policy and after having stated that the conditions mentioned in the policy remain unaltered, it is unfair and unjust on the part of the opposite parties/appellant to turn round and say that the transferee is not eligible to get no claim bonus. At this point it is pertinent to note that after having given an assurance that the transferee will get all the benefits, it is unjust and unfair that the insurer takes a view that the transferee has to complete 12 months for getting the eligible No Claim Bonus after the renewal. It is also to be noted that the transferor as well as the transferee take much care and caution to keep the vehicle without any accident/damage to get some benefit when the policy is renewed. It is also to save reimbursement of the expenses towards accidents/damage that the insurer declares no claim bonus though only trivial. In our view it is only just and reasonable that the transferee also gets the benefits that are promised to the original insured when a policy is legally transferred to the purchaser by the same insurance company. It is further to be noted that the original owner namely the transferor had not claimed any benefit by way of No Claim Bonus for the period during which the policy stood in his name. By the transfer of the policy, he transferred his right to get the No Claim Bonus in favour of the complainant as transferee. In such a situation, the complainant was legitimately entitled for the No Claim Bonus. It is interesting to note that the insurer is unduly benefited by not giving the No Claim Bonus either to the transferor or the transferee. The insurer should not be allowed to take advantage of the transfer of the policy Regulation 19(4) has no application as far as the complainant is concerned. In fact the case involved is governed by General Regulation 10. A reading of Regulation 19(4) would make it clear that the provisions of Regulation 19(4) have no application where General Regulation 10 is applicable. A reading of General Regulation 10 would also make it clear that the complainant being the transferee of the insurance policy is entitled to get all the benefits under the policy. The Forum below has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to get the no claim bonus at the time of renewal of the policy. And we find no sustainable ground to interfere with the said directions of the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed thereby confirming the order dated 8/9/05 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No.535/02. However in the nature and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Pk.
.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
