DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  18^th  day of July,  2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                    :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                   :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                               Date of Filing: 12/01/2023

              CC/13/2023

Akul N.S.,

Nadukalam House,

Karimba Post, Kalladikkode,

Mannarkkad, Palakkad – 678 597.                               -          Complainant

(By Adv. M/s. K. Balasubramanian & Siyas V.K.)

                                                                                                  Vs

1. Magma HDI GIC Ltd.,

Head Office Unit No.1B&2B,

2^nd Floor, Equinox Business Park,

Tower 3, LBS Road, Kurla West,

Mumbai – 400 070.

2. Magma HDI GIC Ltd.,

Rep.by its Branch Manager,

Branch Office 2^nd Floor, E - Town Shopping,

East Fort Junction, Thrissur – 680 005.                 -           Opposite parties

(O.P.s by Adv. P. Prasad)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Skeletal pleadings are that the complainant, owner of vehicle bearing No. KL-54-D-5116, insured with the OPs met with an accident on 21/8/2022. The complainant incurred an expense of Rs.1,66,000/- for repairing the vehicle along with the damages the complainant had to pay for the damage to the infrastructure against which the vehicle collided. But complainant’s claim for indemnification was repudiated for the reason that the policy was in the name of one Mr. Noufal and that there is no contract of insurance that covers the risk of complainant’s vehicle. Complainant claim that his conduct was in full compliance of the provisions under Section 157 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles’ Act, 1988. He is entitled to the indemnification of the expenses he had to incur pursuant to the accident and for compensation and cost.
2. OP filed version stating that the policy was in the name of one Mr. Noufal and that as on the date of accident there was no valid contract between the complainant and OP and hence OP was not bound to indemnify the complainant. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3.   The following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether there was a valid policy in the name of the complainant on the date of alleged accident?
2. Whether insured vehicle was the one involved in the accident?
3. Whether there is any violation of the policy conditions by the complainant?
4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in repudiating the complainant’s claim?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
6. Any other reliefs?

4.         (i)      Evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A12.   There was no objection in marking the document.  

            (ii)      O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1 to B3.

5.         At this juncture, we make use of this opportunity to deprecate the conduct of the complainant in producing indecipherable documents as evidence. Proceedings before any authority are to be made by appreciating the facts available before it. Parties are duty bound to assist the authority in coming to a reasoned conclusion. Such a duty entails that the complainant, or any party for that matter, produce clear decipherable documents, so that the Authority does not have to go by guess-work to ascertain the contents therein.  

            Issue No.1

6.         In the facts and circumstances of the case, what is relevant is to ascertain whether the complainant has complied with the provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that as on the date of accident there was a valid and subsisting contract binding the parties herein.

7.         S. 157 contain two parts, which are relevant herein. First is regards the transfer of policy from the name of the transferor of the vehicle to the transferee. Second, the obligation cast of the transferee to inform the Insurance company. Unless the 2^nd condition is satisfied, the 1^st one will not fructify.

For easy reference Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced herein below:

“157.  Transfer of certificate of insurance. -  (1) Where a person, in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.

Explanation. – X X X X X (Omitted as it is not necessary/relevant herein)

(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer 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 the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.”

            Even though the complainant has pleaded that he has complied with clause 2 of Section 157 of MV Act, 1988, no evidence is forthcoming to show that the complainant had applied in the prescribed form to the insurer within 14 days of transfer for making necessary changes with regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour. 

Thus, this contention of the complainant fails for want of evidence.

8.         It would also be relevant to go through the chronological sequence of relevant facts as is revealed by the pleadings and exhibits to come to a judicious decision.

9.         A perusal of the schedule above would make it clear that the accident predates transfer of ownership, by over 2 months. Even though the complainant has produced and marked an indecipherable document purporting to be a sale agreement as Ext.A12, there is no way we could go through the contents of the same and reach a conclusion with regard to the date of transfer. Hence, we are constrained to go by the partially decipherable Ext.A1. Ext.A1 conclusively proves that transfer of ownership fructified only on 9/11/2022, whereas the accident occurred much earlier on 21/8/2022.  

10.       Thus, we are left with no alternate, but to hold that there was no valid and subsisting agreement of insurance between the complainant and OPs as on 21/08/2022, the date of accident. 

            Issue Nos. 2 & 3           

11.       In view of the findings in issue No.1 that there is no contractual relation between the complainant and the O.P.s, a discussion of these issues would not serve any practical purpose. Hence, we are not resorting to that exercise.   

Issue Nos. 4,5 & 6

12.       We hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in repudiating complainant’s claim.

13.       Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

14.       Accordingly, this complaint stands dismissed.   

15.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 18^th  day of July,  2024.        

                             Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member         

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member     

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   - Copy of certificate of registration

Ext.A2  –  Copy of tax receipt

Ext.A3  -  Copy of tax license

Ext.A4  -  Copy of policy certificate

Ext.A5  –  Copy  of GD abstract

Ext.A6 –  Copy of driving license  

Ext.A7 –  Copy of receipt

Ext.A8 – Copy of repudiation letter

Ext.A9-   Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 28/10/2022

Ext.A10 – Copy of  acknowledgment card

Ext.A11 – Copy of communication dated 23/8/2022

Ext.A12 – Copy of vehicle sale agreement.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1  - Copy of preliminary survey report  

Ext.B2 – Copy of repudiation letter dated 14/2/2023

Ext.B3 -  Copy of policy certificate

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.