Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member and
Radhakrishnan K.R., Member
Manager, United India Insurance
Company Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Biju M.N. – Respondent
First Appeal No.172 of 2017
Decided on 29.7.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:T.J. Lakshmanan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Tom Joseph, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Damage to vehicle in accident—Insured cannot be made to suffer for lapses on part of Insurance Company in not ensuring that vehicle was in good condition at the time of transfer of policy.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Insurance – Damage to vehicle in accident – District Commission allowed complaint and directed opposite party to settle claim made by complainant by making proper assessment of damage caused to vehicle in accident – District Commission further directed opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of proceedings to complainant – Coverage of policy in name of complainant at the time of accident is disputed by OP on the ground that policy was not transferred within grace period of 14 days and accident occurred after this period – Complainant categorically stated that he produced vehicle for inspection and if at all it was not done, it was a lapse on part of OP in not ensuring that vehicle was in good condition at the time of transfer of policy – Documents produced by OP to prove that damaged vehicle was taken to workshop and policy was transferred to complainant after accident is not supported by sufficient evidence – Appellant/OP failed to establish that accident to insured vehicle occurred prior to transfer of policy to name of complainant – Repudiation of claim by OP cannot be justified – OP directed to pay Rs.70,000/- towards claim – All other terms in the order remain intact. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 13 and 16)
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
Radhakrishnan K.R., Member—This is an appeal filed by the opposite party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 24.10.2016 in C.C. No. 797/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short, “the District Commission”). As per the order, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to settle the claim made by the complainant by making proper assessment of the damage caused to the vehicle in the accident. The District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows:-
The appellant/opposite party had insured the Wagon R car bearing registration No. KL 40 A 7191, owned by Mr. Kunjan C.R. vide policy No. 101181/31/13/01/00004844 for the period from 14.01.2014 to 13.01.2015. The above vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 22.01.2014 and the transfer was effected in the R.C. Book with effect from 30.01.2014. The transfer was communicated to the complainant on 07.02.2014. On the next working day, i.e; on 10.02.2014, the complainant approached the opposite party to get the insurance policy transferred in his name. After inspection of the vehicle, the policy was transferred in his name on 10.02.2014. A major accident happened to the vehicle on 11.02.2014 at 2 pm and a claim was lodged with the opposite party, who arranged a survey. The surveyor conducted the survey and a report was submitted to the opposite party. The complainant had incurred an amount of Rs.1,32,242/- towards the repairing charges of the vehicle. The opposite party repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 22.04.2014 on the ground that the complainant had misrepresented the actual date and time of the accident and that on verification of the inward register of the workshop, the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repairs prior to the transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant. According to the complainant, the actual date of accident was on 11.02.2014 which was after the transfer of the policy and the claim was repudiated by the opposite party on flimsy grounds. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and he filed the complaint, claiming Rs.1,31,242/- with compensation and costs.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and filed their version. The opposite party admitted having issued the policy in the name of the previous owner Mr. Kunjan for the period from 14.01.2014 to 13.01.2015. It is also admitted that the accident occurred during the policy period. It was found that the vehicle was transferred in the Registration Certificate to the name of the complainant with effect from 22.01.2014. The insurance policy was transferred to the name of the complainant only on 10.02.2014 at 12.36 pm. The vehicle was not brought by the complainant for inspection by the opposite party prior to transfer of the policy. On investigation, it was found that the vehicle actually met with the accident on 10.02.2014 and as per the inward register of the workshop the vehicle was brought there at 01.15 am on 10.02.2014. ie. prior to transferring the vehicle in the name of the complainant. At the time of accident, the policy stands in the name of the previous owner Kunjan and it was transferred to the name of the complainant after the grace period of 14 days. As the policy was transferred only after the accident, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company. The complainant had suppressed material facts with regard to the date of accident and the claim was repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence in the complaint consists of oral evidence of the comp
