IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 29th day of July, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 34/2022 (Filed on 18-02-2022)
Petitioners : (1) Thomas Joseph,
S/o. Joseph,
Vellippallil House,
Pravithanam Kara & P.O.
Kottayam – 686 575.
(2) Biju Joseph,
S/o. Joseph,
Chittettu House, Kozhimala P.O.
Kanchiyar, Udumpanchola,
Idukki, Kerala – 685511.
(Adv. Jose Zacharia and Adv. C.J. Shaji)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.
1st Floor, RNA Plaza, Mullackal,
Alappuzha - 688011.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief of the complaint is as follows:
Second complainant has insured his vehicle bearing registration number KL-37-C-1614 with the opposite party vide policy no.221222023340006551 for the period 6-8-2020 to 5-8-21. While the policy was in force the first complainant purchased the vehicle from the second complainant. Thereafter when the first complainant approached the opposite party, it was informed that the insurance policy could be changed in the name of the registered owner only and the opposite party directed the first complainant to come after effecting the changes in the RC
book. As per the direction of the opposite party first complainant has given all the documents to JRTO, Pala, for effecting the changes in the R.C. book. Due to Covid -9 there were some delay in processing the transfer of the vehicle at JRTO Pala.
Facts being so, the vehicle met with an accident on 12-6-2021 and it got damaged. Thereafter the complainant intimated the accident to the opposite party. Then the opposite party informed that only the registered owner can maintain an own damage claim application and suggested making a claim in the name of the second complainant. As per the direction of the opposite party second complainant made a claim before the opposite party for and on behalf of the first complainant.
After making the claim as per the suggestion of the opposite party, on 2-7-21 , photocopies of sale letter of the vehicle , form 29, form30 and a letter by second complainant informing the transfer of the vehicle to the first complainant were forwarded to the opposite party. After that opposite party has repudiated the claim and informed the first complainant letter dated 26-7-21 that the claim was not maintainable on the ground that there was transfer of ownership and there was no insurable interest for the second complainant over the vehicle.
It is averred in the complaint that the opposite party has deliberately given false advise to the e complainants to avoid payment of the genuine insurance claim and has committed breach of trust for repudiating the own damage claim. The vehicle was repaired at Trupthi Automobiles, Pala by spending Rs.51,470/-. Thought the lawyers notice issued by the second complainant was received by the opposite party, yet not even a reply was given to the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complainant is filed by the complainants praying for an order to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.51,470 along with interest and to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/.
Though the notice was duly served to the opposite party, they failed to appear before the Commission and to file version. Hence opposite party is set exparty.
First complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A10.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
(1)Whether the complainants are entitled to any reliefs by establishing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Admittedly the second complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number KL-37-C-1614. Exhibit A2 is the photocopy of the registration certificate. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.221222023340006551 for the period 6-8-2020 to 5-8-21. On perusal of exhibit A1 which is the photocopy of the policy schedule issued by the opposite party we can see that the said vehicle was insured in the name of the second complainant and the insured sum was 3,75,000/-. Admittedly the vehicle had met with an accident on 12-6-2021 and it got damaged. According to the complainants though the second complainant had lodged a claim before the opposite party the same was repudiated on the ground that there was a transfer in ownership and the second complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident. Exhibit A3 is the claim form submitted by the second complainant to the opposite party on 14-6-2021. Exhibit A7 is the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party. On perusal of exhibit A7 we can see that the opposite party has stated that the vehicle had been sold to one Salim by the second complainant and further it had been resold to the first complainant herein. It is pertinent to note that the complainant admitted the transfer of vehicle to the first complainant by the second complainant. Exhibit A5 series are photocopies of the form 30 which is used for the transfer of the ownership of motor vehicle. On perusal of exhibit A5 we can see that the same has been filed by the complainants before the registering authorities on 5-5-21. Thus it is evident from the records that the accident was occurred during the pendency of procedure by the authorities to effect the transfer of ownership in the name of the first complainant. On perusal of the records we can see that the even though the second complainant sold the vehicle to the first complainant he was the owner of the vehicle as per the records and the vehicle was insured in his name at the time of the accident .
Moreover on perusal of exhibt A2 R.C. book we can see that the vehicle is hypothecated with IndusInd bank. If there is an impediment to the transfer, as in the instant case, where ‘No Objection’ of the financier bank was imperative for transfer of the said vehicle, there could be no question of transfer of title until the impediment were removed, for otherwise the contract for transfer would be injurious to the financier bank, immoral, unlawful and void under Section 10 read with Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Act, 1872.
It was thus, an implicit condition of the agreement for transfer of the said vehicle, that the transfer would be complete only upon issuance of ‘No Objection” by the financier bank and upon compliance with the statutory requirements for transfer of a motor vehicle.
The contract in this case, could not possibly have been an unconditional contract of transfer of movable property in deliverable state, but a contract to transfer, contingent upon ‘No Objection” from Indusind Bank, and compliance with the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder.
In Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs The New India Assurance Company decided on 18 June, 2020 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
“In our considered opinion, the National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the National Commission ignoring vital admitted facts as stated above, including registration of the said truck being in the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of ‘No Objection’ from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance under Section 157.
In view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari.
In the light of above discussed evidence and decision of the apex court we are of the opinion that the second complainant is the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. There is no dispute on the fact that the claim was lodged by the second complaint in whose name the vehicle has been registered at the time of the accident.
It is proved by exhibit A8 tax invoice issued by force Spare House that the complainant had spent Rs.22480 to rectify the defects of the vehicle. Though a quotation from the Thrupthi automobiles was annexed with the Exhibit A8 the complainants failed to produce any cash receipt or any other documents to prove that he had paid the amount which is shown in the said quotation.
In the light of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim lodged by the second complainant. No doubt the act of the opposite party caused much mental agony and hardship to the second complainant.
In these circumstance we allow this complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.22,480/- to the second complainant who is the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident.
We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the second complainant for the mental agony caused to him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of July, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of insurance policy issued by the opposite party
A2 – Copy of RC book (KL-37-C-1614)
A3 – Copy of motor claim form
A4- Copy of Goods carriage certificate
A5 – Copy of report of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle (Part I)
A5 (a)– Copy of report of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle (Part II)
A6 – Copy of letter dtd.22-07-21 by petitioner to opposite party
A7- Letter dtd.26-07-2021 issued by opposite party to petitioner
A8-Photocopy of bill dtd.14-06-21 issued by Thrupathi Automobiles
A9 –Photocopy of legal notice issued by Adv. C.J. Shaji on 22-09-2021
A10- Copy of legal notice dtd.24-09-21 by Thomas Joseph to the opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
