NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. TK.SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in O.P. No. 103/03 order dated 11.2.2010. The appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The respondent is the complainant in the above O.P. In short, the complainant is a registered owner of a Aulto Motor car and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are the insurer of the said vehicle. The vehicle was purchased from the 4th opposite party on 16.1.2003. The vehicle was met with an accident on 6.2.2003. The occurrence of the accident was informed to the insurer in right time. The complainant carried out the repair of the vehicle and incurred repair charges amounting to Rs. 15,436.55. Though the claim was launched, the opposite parties repudiated. The vehicle at the time of accident was driven by C.I. Benny who was having a driving license and badge. The vehicle was also having comprehensive insurance policy valid from 3.7.2002 to 3.7.2003. The claim form was filled at the workshop where it happened to mention that the vehicle was driving by the complainant by mistake. It was only mistake which was brought at the notice of the opposite parties at the time of survey itself,. Based on the grounds the claim is rejected illegally without any enquiry similarly the change of ownership was also informed to the insurer in time and the same takes place automatically by the operation of law, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4 filed their written version, the opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted the insurance policy. They contended that the policy was taken by Mr. George Varghese and he stood in his name till 10.2.2003. On 10.2.2003, the policy was changed in the name of the complainant. The complaint had launched a claim in respect of an accident which took place on 6.2.2003 on which date the policy stood in the name of the said charge as on the date of accident. The complainant had not insurable interest and benefit under the policy cannot be extended to him. The insurance certificate was changed in the name of the complainant only on 10.2.2003, which was subsequent to this accident. Another contention raised by the complainant that at the time of the accident the vehicle was driven by the complainant himself and he was not having authorized badge to drive a transport vehicle. It is a violation of policy conditions. The claim of the complainant that one Mr. Benny was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is not true. In the claim Form the complainant himself admitted that he was driving the vehicle. But at the time of the survey he had made a futile to admit to fabricate a person who hold a badge, which was thwarted away by the surveyor. On these reasons, the opposite parties repudiated the claim and they contended that which was legally done. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The forum below discussed the matter on the basis of the oral evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A6 adduced by the complainant and witness Dw1 and Exts. B1 to B3 adduced by the opposite party and found that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint. The Forum below allowed the complaint. The complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 11,450/- with 9% interest from the date of allowing of the complaint till the date from the opposite parties 1 to 3. It is also allowed the complainant to realize Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the above opposite parties.This order was challenged by the appellants through this appeal. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The counsel for the appellant/opposite parties are present and argued their own cases in details. The counsel for the appellant argued the appellant on the grounds of appeal memorandum and he submitted that the transfer of the vehicle, both the registrar and insurance policy did not taken place within the stipulated time as prescribed by law. At the time of the accident there is no policy in the name of the complainant. As per the policy conditions the opposite parties are not liable to pay the claim amount on these circumstances. His another contentions is that at the time of the accident the vehicle was driven by the complainant. He was not having a valid badge to drive a transport vehicle. But later Benny, a totally 3rd party who substituted as driver. This is also ensuring violation of the conditions of the policy. In these circumstances, opposite parties are not liable to pay any claim amount claimed by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence they prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the sale of the vehicle was on 31.1.2003. It is within the 14 days of the sale of the vehicle. It is permissible as per Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act. In these circumstances, the argument of the appellant side that to know the transfer was effective at the time of accident is irrelevant and not legally sustainable. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that Benny was having valid license and badge at the time of driving of the vehicle which involved in the accident. It was deposed by Benny. Thus he examined as Pw2. Benny and in the circumstances the contentions of the appellants that the driver was not having any valid license at the time of driving the vehicle(at the time of the accident of the vehicle) is not legally sustainable and irrelavant. Hence the counsel of the respondent prays for the dismissal of the complaint. We heard in detail both sides and perused the entire evidence adduced by both sides from the case bundle. We have seen that the transfer of the vehicle was taken place by the complainant within the stipulated time as per the Section 157 of the Motor vehicles Act. Hence the accident of the vehicle was occurred within 14 days after the sale and it is valid transfer of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the vehicle was having a valid license at the time of the accident. But at the same time the complainant did not prove that the driver was having valid badge authorized to drive a transport vehicle. As per the evidence in the claim form also the name of the driver was given as the complainant. In these circumstances, this Commission is not any way ready to accept that the driver was at the time of accident was not having a valid badge authorize to drive a transport vehicle. As per evidence the driver was not having valid badge As per the policy conditions, in the circumstances the opposite parties are not liable to pay the claim amount. We are not seeing any irregularity or illegality in the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties. They are not seeing any apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. At the very same time the accident was admitted and the insurance has also admitted by the opposite parties. Transfer of the vehicle was within stipulated period was also proved by the complainant. Only a question that whether the driver who driven the vehicle at the time of the accident was having a valid badge. In the strict sense of law the opposite parties are not entitled to pay the claim amount. This position is settled by the National Commission in New India Insurance Company Vs. Chandrakanth Bhujangrao (CRP No. 4387/09. In the circumstance it is seeing that an apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below and the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is not legally sustainable. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part with a direction that the appellant/opposite parties to consider this matter favourably on the non standard basis. The order of the Forum below is set aside. In the decision held in such a cases, the complainant/insurer is entitled to get the claim on the non standard basis. The detailed claim settlement of schedule is also given with the decision. It is a fact that the policy was taken for vehicle not for the owner of the vehicle. Any owner is not eligible to get any claim in these policies other than connected with the vehicle. The appeal is disposed with the above direction. Both parties are direct to bear their own respective expenses.