STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/458 null M/s national insurance co ltd PRESENT ADDRESS - KOLLANNUR BUILDING ROUND EAST THRISSUR ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHAJEEB PRESENT ADDRESS - VALIYAKATH HOUSE KATTOOR PO THRISSUR ,KERALA.

SUBAIR K A PRESENT ADDRESS - KADAVIL HOUSE VADANAPPILLY POST THRISSUR ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/s national insurance co ltd, PRASANNA KUMAR NAIR (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SHAJEEB, In-Person SUBAIR K A , In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 458/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 28.02.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.635/2009 on the file of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollannur Building, Round East, Thrissur (by Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Shajeeb, S/o Saleem, Valiyakath House, Kattoor P.O., Thrissur

2.

Subair K.A., Kadavil House, Vadanappilly Post, Thrissur

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

nd The 2 opposite party in C.C.No.635/2009 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short ‘the District Commission’) is the appellant.

2. The complainant purchased a Wagon R car bearing registration No. KL 46 A

1834 from one Subair on 25.05.2009 and thereafter, he submitted a proper application with the documents for getting his name registered in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle. His name was entered in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle with effect from 28.05.2009. However, the complainant received the Registration Certificate only on 06.11.2009. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 19.07.2009 and, as a consequence, the vehicle sustained heavy damage. The surveyor appointed by the second opposite party assessed the damage at Rs.1,54,224/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Four only). The complainant would contend that he is entitled to get the amount for the total loss of the vehicle. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the second opposite party for the reason that the complainant was not the insured of the vehicle as on the date of the accident.

st nd

3. The 1 opposite party did not incline to file any version. The 2 opposite

party filed a version admitting the coverage of the policy. However, the second

opposite party contended that the policy was in the name of Subair, who was the

former owner of the vehicle and hence, as on the date of the accident, namely 19.07.2009, Subair ceased to have any insurable interest in the said vehicle and consequently, the claim could not be honored. The registered owner on the date of the accident was the complainant and the insured was one Subair and hence, the claim submitted by the complainant could not be honoured.

4. Before the District Commission, the proof affidavit was filed by the complainant. Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked for the complainant. Exhibits R1 and R2 nd were marked for the 2 opposite party. Exhibit C1 was also marked. After nd evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the 2 opposite party to pay Rs.1,54,224/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Four only) with interest to the complainant.

5. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondents.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records.

7. It is not disputed that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 46 A 1834 was purchased by the complainant from one Subair on 25.05.2009. Exhibit P4 registration certificate would show that the vehicle was transferred to the name of the complainant with effect from 28.05.2009. The said endorsement was made in the records of