SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.2,29,474/- the repair charges of his vehicle with interest to complainant together with Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony happened to the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The facts of the complaint are that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle with registration No.KL59Q4576. On 06/10/2018 the vehicle met with as accident at Mundottu in Kallar Village in Kanhangad, Kasargod District. The vehicle was insured against all risk with the OP wide policy number No.701721823340002045 for the period commencing from 29/08/2018 to 28/08/2019. As the vehicle met with the accident and materially damaged on 06/10/2018 vide claim No.31182065 this complainant preferred a claim with the respondent. All necessary papers were forwarded to the respondent company. But to the surprise of the complainant he received a communication from the OP insurance company by a letter dated 07/12/2018 stated that the claim forwarded by the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the “fact of transfer of the vehicle was not communicated and there is no contractual relationship between the company and the complainant as the vehicle was transferred.” Complainant submitted he didn’t transfer the vehicle to any body and still the vehicle is in his ownership and possession. There was only a proposal to sell the vehicle to a third party and it was not concluded. Still the vehicle is in the ownership and possession of this complainant and other than the complainant no others are having any right or claim over the same. The reason assigned by the OP company is totally baseless and based up on a story cooked up by the officer of the company who had vengeance against this complainant for the non agreement for payment of 10 % of the award which may be passed. The order of repudiation of the claim by the OP is illegal and against fact. It is submitted that the OP having contracted with this petitioner against all risk and damages for the vehicle No.KL59Q4576 the respondent was bound to compensate the complainant against the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident. By repudiating the claim without considering the legal documents the OP has violated the terms of the agreement. The action on the par t of the OP is a deficient service as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence this complaint.
In reply OP averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that his OP had insured vehicle bearing register No.KL-59-Q-4576 during the period from 29/08/2018 to 28/08/2019 vide policy No.701721823340002045. It is admitted that vide claim No.3118206530, the complainant had preferred a claim with the respondent for repair of the above vehicle under the aforesaid Policy. OP totally denied all the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.
The OP submitted that with reference to the reported insurance claim which was intimated on 24/01/2018 towards loss of the subject vehicle under the above mentioned policy, the OP has evaluated the claim based on the supporting documents. On careful perusal of the said documents and investigations in the matter, it was observed that the insured name as per the policy and registration certificate is Mr. Achuthan Eriyalath, complainant however the said vehicle is purchased and used by Mr. Vijeesh. The complainant has sold the vehicle before the accident to Mr. Vijeesh. So the complainant do not hold any insurable interest. As per the Motor Vehicle Act, where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered is transferred.
- The transferor shall,
- In the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within where jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee, and
- In the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority.
Motor Vehicle Rule further says regarding transfers as follows. “The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance”.
The OP submitted that under the principle of insurable interest, the insured must have interest in the subject matter of the insurance. In this case the complainant has sold his vehicle and so he does not hold any insurable interest. As per the India Motor Tariff formulated by IRDA there should exist insurable interest at the time of taking the policy as well as at the time of loss. In the instant case the same was not the position and so the claim was repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. This OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint.
The evidence adduced consists of chief-affidavit of complainant and was examined as Pw1, marked Ext.A1 to A4. The Manager of Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kasargod, where the vehicle was alleged to be repaired after the accident was examined as witness from the side of complainant. Both witnesses were cross-examined for the OP. On the side of opposite party attested copy of Insurance policy issued in the name of complainant produced and marked as Ext.B1. After that both Learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the opposite party filed their written argument notes.
It was not disputed that opposite party has issued policy in favour of complainant for a period of 29/08/2019 to 28/08/2019 tothe vehicle having Registration No.KL59Q4576.
Complainant alleged that he is the Registered owner of the insured vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident 06/10/2018 at Mundottu in Kallar Villiage in Kanhangad, Kasargode district and on the same day he preferred claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents to the OP. But on 07/12/2018, his claim was repudiated by OP through Ext.A1 letter stating the reason “on careful perusal of the documents and the investigations in the matter, it was observed that the insured name as per policy and registration certificate is Mr. Achuthan Eriyalath however the said vehicle is purchased and used by Mr. Vijesh; As you have sold your vehicle, you do not hold any insurable interest”. Complainant alleged that the repudiation of his claim made by OP is illegal and against fact and amounts to deficiency in service.
On the other hand OP has totally denied the claim put forward by the complainant to get the vehicle repair expense as alleged by him. The learned counsel of OP submitted that complainant even failed to prove the accident happened to the insured vehicle as alleged by the complainant. Further submitted that prior to the alleged accident, complainant had sold the insured vehicle to one Mr. Vijesh and vehicle was in his use. So according to OP as per Motor Vehicles Act, where the ownership f any motor vehicle registered is transferred @ the transferor shall, within fourteen days of the transfer report the fact of transfer in such form with such documents to the insurer who has insured the vehicle. OP contended that the complainant failed to do that and as the complainant was not the owner of the insured vehicle on the accident date, he is not entitled to get the claim.
Here, first of all we have to look into whether complainant substantiated the alleged accident of the vehicle in question. Complainant produced Ext.A2 RO Bill – Tax Invoice issued by Eram Motors Pvt.Ltd., Kasargod dated 30/11/2018. From the side of complainant, examined Pw2 the manager of the said service centre. He identified and admitted that Ext.A2 is the repair bill issued from his office in relation to vehicle No.KL59Q4576. On perusal of Ext.A2, reveals that service type was Accidental, bill issued to M/s Reliance General Insurance company Ltd. (OP) and grand total amount was Rs.2,29,474/-. Further stated that customer name as Achuthan Eriyalath (complainant). Thus through Pw2 and Ext.A2, complainant proved the accident of the vehicle and Ext.A2 pertains to the accidental repair bill and it was given to OP Insurance Company from the service centre where the damaged vehicle got repaired.
The next point to be decided is whether on the date when the vehicle met with accident complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle?
Insurance company contended that before the date of accident, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Mr. Vijesh and so Mr. Vijesh was the owner of the vehicle on the accident date and complainant would not inform the said fact to insurance company as per Motor Vehicle Act.
It is pertinent to be noted that the word “owner” has been defined under section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and it means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. Thus whenever and wherever the word “owner” is used, it would mean the registered owner of the vehicle. Here complainant averred that through there was a proposal to sell the vehicle to a third part, it was not concluded and on the date of accident of the subject vehicle, he was the owner and the vehicle was in his possession. For proving the said fact he has submitted Original R C book of the insured vehicle (Ext.A3), which clearly shows that the registered owner of the vehicle is Achuthan Eriyalath. Hence, it is a real fact that till the date of the incident, the actual transfer of the vehicle in the name of a third person had not done and complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle. OP also failed to substantiate their contention through documentary evidence. Mere statement in the version itself cannot be considered as evidence without submitting relevant document. Here, insurance company is trying to interpret the statement of the surveyor, so that the liability to compensate the loss of the complainant could be avoided. Thus the 2nd point is found in favour of the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, the complainant has right for submitting claim for indemnification of the loss of the insured vehicle. Here the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that complainant had sold the vehicle to Mr.Vijesh. It is highly unjustified on the part of the Insurance company to repudiate this claim on the ground that the complainant do not hold any insurable interest with them. Here OP does not have a case that complainant had not submitted the claim form to them, not in time. Here we can also see that OP did not appoint an Investigator to assess the actual loss happened to the vehicle after getting claim form from the complainant. Hence before us Ext.A2 is the only evidence for assessing loss happened to the vehicle. So we are inclined to direct OP to pay the amount mentioned in Ext.A2 to indemnify the insurance claim to the complainant.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled to get relief.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,29,474/- the repair and material charges incurred to the complainant in repairing the insured vehicle with Rs.15,000/- as compensation, within one month from the dated of receipt of this order. Failing which Rs. 2,29,474/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party for realization of the awarded amount as per the provisions envisaged in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exhibits.
A1 - Repudiation letter dated 07/12/2018
A2 - Copy of estimate (subject proof)
A3 - Origina R C
A4 - Policy certificate
B1 - Attested copy of Insurance policy issued in the name of complainant
Pw1 - Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
