DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 17th day of December 2021
C.C 287/2017
Complainant
Mrs. Suneera
D/o Hamza
Puthankottupulayakalathil (H)
Karikkittamkunnu
Mannarkkad – 678 583
(By Adv. Sri. Abdu Puthiyottil)
Opposite Party
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
2nd Floor, Citadel Arcade
Opp. Tagore Centinary Hall
R C Road, Kozhikode – 673 001.
(By Adv. Sri. N. Sooraj)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner and insurer of the car bearing Regn No.KL-14-L-5741 which met with an accident on 23/06/2013 near Valluvambram in Valluvambram - Kozhikode NH. The said car lost control and dashed on a tree, as a result of which, it was completely damaged. The car was duly insured with the opposite party as per policy valid from 04/04/2013 to 03/04/2014. The complainant preferred claim before the opposite party and it was repudiated stating that the vehicle was sold to one Janish and the RC and insurance policy were not transferred till the date of loss. The repudiation is baseless and contrary to the real facts. The allegation that the vehicle was sold to Janish is not true. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.23,00,000/- due to the damage of the car. Besides monetary loss, mental agony was suffered by her due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Thus the complainant has sustained a total loss to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/-. However, the claim is limited to Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version. It is admitted by the opposite party that they had issued policy certificate for the said vehicle for the period from 04/04/2013 to 03/04/2014. The receipt of the insurance claim is also admitted. The enquiry conducted by the investigator appointed revealed that the said vehicle was sold by the complainant to one Mr. Ummer Janish prior to the date of the accident. But the name of the complainant was not changed in the policy certificate and registration certificate due to the reason that the vehicle was having financial assistance from Kodak Mahindra Pvt Ltd. The claim form was actually submitted by Mr. Ummer Janish in the name of the complainant. The car was not in the possession of the complainant. The complainant was residing at Karkidamkunnu, Mannarkkad in Palakkad district. But the accident was at Valluvambram. The driver of the car at the time of accident was Mr. Ramees, who is the brother of Ummer Janish. The complainant is not having any insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss. The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. There is no privity of contract of insurance existing between Mr. Janish and the insurer. Earlier, the complainant had filed OP 98/2015 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kozhikode for the same relief and that case was withdrawn and filed before this court. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part. The complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed
4. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice
or deficiency of service on the part of the
opposite party in repudiating the claim ?
(2) Reliefs and costs?
5. PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Ext B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
6. PW1 is none other than the complainant who filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. RW1 is the Legal Claims Manager of the opposite party and he filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the version.
7. Heard both sides. Brief argument notes were also filed.
8. Point No. 1 : It is seen that the complainant herein had filed a case as OP.98/2015 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kozhikode. But on the basis of the statement filed by the complainant, it was dismissed as not pressed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to approach the proper forum, as per Ext. A6 order dated 11/07/2017.
9. The complainant is claiming Rs.23,00,000/- for the damage caused to the Car bearing registration No. KL-14-L-5741 which met with an accident on 23/06/2013. She is also claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to the acts and omissions of the opposite party. However, the claim is limited to Rs.20,00,000/-.
10. Ext. A7 is the copy of the claim prepared by the complainant. ( Ext B2 is the original ). The claim was rejected by the opposite party for the reason that she was not having any insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the time of loss. Ext.A4 is the copy of the repudiation letter (original is Ext. B3). The stand taken by the insurance company is that the vehicle was sold by the complainant to one Mr. Ummer Janish prior to the date of the accident. This stand was taken by the opposite party on the basis of Ext.B6 investigation report furnished to them by a private investigator.
11. It is not disputed that the opposite party had issued Ext.A3 policy for the vehicle (Ext.A3 and Ext.B1 is the same). At the time of accident the vehicle had insurance coverage. As per Ext.A5 survey report, the damage was assessed at Rs.18,08,892.85 and there is no dispute on the assessment or quantum. As already stated, the reason for repudiating the claim was that the complainant was not the owner, but Mr.Ummer Janish was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the damage and the complainant was not having any insurable interest at the time of loss. The complainant has produced Ext. A2 copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle which shows that she is the registered owner. Ext.A3 policy bears the name of the complainant. Nothing is produced by the opposite party to show that the vehicle is in the name of Mr. Ummer Janish as on the date of loss. No document showing any such sale is forthcoming. It is an admitted fact that the registration certificate stands in the name of the complainant. The name of the complainant appears as the registered owner in the records of the Registering Authority maintained as per the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly no transfer of registry is effected in the records after the complainant purchased the vehicle. So the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle. The mere fact that the claim form was submitted in the e-mail address of Ummer Janish by itself does not mean that the complainant sold the vehicle to him. Equally, the fact that the name of the brother of said Ummer Janish appears as driver at the time of accident in Ext. A1 FIR does not automatically means that the vehicle is not owned by the complainant. Ext.B6 investigation report will not suffice to hold that the vehicle was sold. In the absence of any document evidencing sale, it has to be taken that the complainant whose name appears as registered owner in the records of the Registering Authority is the owner of the vehicle.
12. Another circumstance pointed out by the opposite party is that the accident took place at Valluvambram whereas the complainant was residing at Palakkad. But Ext.A8 copy of the passport of the complainant shows the name of her husband as Sabeer Ali. Ext A9 is the copy of the Aadhaar card of her husband which shows that the husband’s residence is situated near to the place of accident.
13. From the oral evidence and the documents produced, it is proved that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident. That being so, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party without any just or valid reason. .
14. In Ext.A5 survey report the loss has been assessed by the surveyor of the opposite party as Rs.18,08,892.85. There is no dispute on the assessment. So the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 18,08,892.85 to the complainant towards the damage sustained to her vehicle in the accident, as per the policy.
15. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to mental agony and hardship due to the acts of the opposite party in denying the claim stating flimsy reason. Legitimate claim was denied by the opposite party in spite of having valid policy coverage. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately for the mental agony and hardship suffered. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings.
16. Point No.2:
In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 287/2017 is allowed.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,08,892.85/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh eight thousand eight hundred and ninety two and eighty five paise only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint i.e, 01/08/2017 till realisation.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
- The payment as aforestated shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 17th day December, 2021.
Date of Filing: 01/08/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of First Information Report
Ext. A2 – Copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle
Ext. A3 – Copy of policy of the vehicle bears the name of
the complainant.
Ext. A4 – Copy of letter from opposite party
Ext.A5 – Copy of survey report of accident
Ext.A6 – Copy of Order in the Permanant Lok Adalath
Ext –A7 – Copy of the claim prepared by the complainant.
Ext –A8 – Copy of the passport of the complainant
Ext. A9 - copy of the Aadhaar card of complainants husband
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties
Ext.B1 – Reliance Motor Private Car Policy Schedule
Ext.B2 – Original of the Motor Claim Form.
Ext. B3 – Copy of letter to the complainant
Ext. B4 – Copy of survey report of accident
Ext.B5 – Copy of First Information Report
Ext.B6 – Copy of investigation report –OD Claim
Commission Exhibits
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Mrs. Suneera - Complainant
Witnesses for the opposite party
RW1 - Joseph Santhosh – Legal Claims Manager
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
