BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 156 of 2017
Date of Institution: 10.03.2017
Date of Decision: 02.02.2018
- Kuljit Kaur widow of Sukhwinder Singh
- Amritpal Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh (Minor)
- Harpreet Kaur daughter of Sukhwinder Singh (Minor), through their mother and natural guardian complainant No.1
- Manpreet Kaur daughter of Sukhwinder Singh
- Harjinder Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh, all resident of H.No.477, Village: Dhotian, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran.
Complainant
Versus
Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co.Limited, 2nd Floor DARE House, 2nd NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director/ General Manager/ CEO/ Principal Officer.
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainants: Sh.S.S.Channa, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. The complainants have brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Sukhwinder Singh husband of complainant No.1 got insured his vehicle bearing No.PB-05-Q-9322 having engine No.578839, chassis No.EFA2022, Model 2009 from Opposite Party for the period from 24.8.2013 to 23.08.2014 and the said vehicle was financed from Indusind Bank for a sum of Rs.10,75,000/-. Husband of complainant No.1 died on 12.2.2014 leving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. It is worthwhile to mention over here that before the death, the payment of finance was repaid to the Indusind Bank. After the death of Sukhwinder Singh, the complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party for getting the policy transferred in the name of legal heirs of the deceased. The Opposite Party stated that for getting the policy transferred, the death certificate of the insured, RC of the vehicle showing transfer of the ownership in the name of legal heirs and the original policy are required for transfer of the policy and until and unless these documents are not provided, the policy can not be transferred. As the vehicle was got financed from the Indusind Bank as there was hypothecation endorsement on the RC, therefore, the officials of DTO refused to transfer the RC until and unless No objection certificate is not procured from the company which financed the vehicle. The finance amount alongwith interest had already been paid to the Indusind Bank, therefore the complainant approached the Indusind Bank for getting the NOC, but without any reason and cause they lingered on the matter and ultimately they refused to give the NOC inspite of the fact that there was no payment due towards the Indusind Bank. The complainant specifically stated that the NOC is required for transfer of RC of vehicle, but the officials of the Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC inspite of the best efforts made by the complainant. When Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC, the complainant No.1 had to file complaint in the Consumer Court which was filed on 3.4.2014 for seeking the directions to the Indusind Bank for providing the NOC of the vehicle to the complainant. Said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant on 22.1.2015 with the directions that the Opposite Party Indusind Bank will provide the NOC in the name of the complainant and directions was also given to the complainant for submission of NOC from all other LRs of Sukhwinder Singh to the effect that they have no objection, if the NDC is issued in the name of the complainant and direction was issued to the Indusind Bank for issuance of NDC within 15 days from the submission of No Objection by legal heirs. The legal heirs submitted that NOC on 20.2.2015 and the Indusind Bank provided the NOC, but the NOC was issued in the name of Sukhwinder Singh deceased and the date on NOC was showing as 3.2.2014, whereas the NOC was given on 20.2.2015 and the complaint was decided on 22.1.2015. When the complainant requested the Indusind Bank for issuing the NOC in current date, but they stated that the NOC has been issued showing the wrong date and it is a lengthy procedure to get the date corrected, therefore, the complainant accepted the said NOC. As the policy of the vehicle was from 24.8.2013 to 23.8.2014 and Sukhwinder Singh died on 12.2.2014 and due intimation of the death of Sukhwinder Singh was given to the Opposite Party , but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant as the complainant could not provide the RC transferred in her name due to the reason mentioned above. As the complainant had filed complaint for NOC against the Indusind Bank on 3.4.2014 and during the pendancy of the complaint, the policy was due to expire on 23.8.2015, therefore, the complainant approached the Opposite Party for getting the renewal of the policy. At that time, the complainant again requested to get the policy renewed in her name as Sukhwinder Singh was no more at that time, even the complainant No.1 informed the official of the Opposite Party that she has filed the complaint against the bank for procuring the NOC which is required to get the RC transferred. The official of the Opposite Party told that they are bound to issue the policy in the name of person, which has been shown in the RC. As the insurance policy is mandatory under the law, therefore, the official of the Opposite Party told the complainant No.1 to get the policy renewed in the name of deceased and as and when the RC will be transferred in the name of LRs, the policy will be transferred in the name showing in the RC. The official of the Opposite Party knowingly that Sukhwinder Singh has died, inspite of that renewed the policy from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 agianst the payment made through cheque to the Opposite Party and cover note was issued from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 knowing that the person in whose name the cover note is being issued is dead. On 28.1.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident and claim was lodged with Opposite Party . The surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle and documents were demanded and all the documents were provided to the surveyor, the vehicle was damaged totally and it was a total loss case. All the formalities were completed. The complainant received letter dated 13.3.2015 vide which the claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy was not transferred after the death of insured within three months from the date of death of the insured. The complainant No.1 informed all the facts as narrated above regarding the filing of the complaint before Consumer Court, but they finally refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainants. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Party may kindly be directed to make the payment of claim to the tune of Rs.13,75,000/- i.e. IDV value of the policy as the vehicle is total loss with interest @ 18% per annum.
b) Opposite Party be directed to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs.1 lac for causing them inconvenience, mental pain, agony and harassment.
c) Cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs.11,000/- may also be awarded to the complainants.
d) Any other relief to which the complainants are found entitled under the law and equity be also awarded to them.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Sukhwinder Singh had died more than one year back and till date neither the legal heir certificate has been submitted by the complainants to the Opposite Party nor the policy was got transferred by the complainants in their favour. As such, the complainants are not entitled for any claim on the basis of said insurance policy and the said claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 13.3.2015. The complainants had never approached the Opposite Party for the transfer of the aid policy in their names. Moreover, no such incident ever took place. When the complainant did not approach the Opposite Party for the transfer of the policy, the question of demanding the said documents do not arise at all. On merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In their bid to prove the case, complainants tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and closed their evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, Manager Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that Sukhwinder Singh husband of complainant No.1 got insured his vehicle bearing No.PB-05-Q-9322 having engine No.578839, chassis No.EFA2022, Model 2009 from Opposite Party for the period from 24.8.2013 to 23.08.2014 and the said vehicle was financed from Indusind Bank for a sum of Rs.10,75,000/-. Husband of complainant No.1 died on 12.2.2014 leving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. It is worthwhile to mention over here that before the death, the payment of finance was repaid to the Indusind Bank. After the death of Sukhwinder Singh, the complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party for getting the policy transferred in the name of legal heirs of the deceased. The Opposite Party stated that for getting the policy transferred, the death certificate of the insured, RC of the vehicle showing transfer of the ownership in the name of legal heirs and the original policy are required for transfer of the policy and until and unless these documents are not provided, the policy can not be transferred. As the vehicle was got financed from the Indusind Bank as there was hypothecation endorsement on the RC, therefore, the officials of DTO refused to transfer the RC until and unless No objection certificate is not procured from the company which financed the vehicle. The finance amount alongwith interest had already been paid to the Indusind Bank, therefore the complainant approached the Indusind Bank for getting the NOC, but without any reason and cause they lingered on the matter and ultimately they refused to give the NOC inspite of the fact that there was no payment due towards the Indusind Bank. The complainant specifically stated that the NOC is required for transfer of RC of vehicle, but the officials of the Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC inspite of the best efforts made by the complainant. When Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC, the complainant No.1 had to file complaint in the Consumer Court which was filed on 3.4.2014 for seeking the directions to the Indusind Bank for providing the NOC of the vehicle to the complainant. Said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant on 22.1.2015 with the directions that the Opposite Party Indusind Bank will provide the NOC in the name of the complainant and directions was also given to the complainant for submission of NOC from all other LRs of Sukhwinder Singh to the effect that they have no objection, if the NDC is issued in the name of the complainant and direction was issued to the Indusind Bank for issuance of NDC within 15 days from the submission of No Objection by legal heirs. The legal heirs submitted that NOC on 20.2.2015 and the Indusind Bank provided the NOC, but the NOC was issued in the name of Sukhwinder Singh deceased and the date on NOC was showing as 3.2.2014, whereas the NOC was given on 20.2.2015 and the complaint was decided on 22.1.2015. When the complainant requested the Indusind Bank for issuing the NOC in current date, but they stated that the NOC has been issued showing the wrong date and it is a lengthy procedure to get the date corrected, therefore, the complainant accepted the said NOC. As the policy of the vehicle was from 24.8.2013 to 23.8.2014 and Sukhwinder Singh died on 12.2.2014 and due intimation of the death of Sukhwinder Singh was given to the Opposite Party , but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant as the complainant could not provide the RC transferred in her name due to the reason mentioned above. As the complainant had filed complaint for NOC against the Indusind Bank on 3.4.2014 and during the pendancy of the complaint, the policy was due to expire on 23.8.2015, therefore, the complainant approached the Opposite Party for getting the renewal of the policy. At that time, the complainant again requested to get the policy renewed in her name as Sukhwinder Singh was no more at that time, even the complainant No.1 informed the official of the Opposite Party that she has filed the complaint against the bank for procuring the NOC which is required to get the RC transferred. The official of the Opposite Party told that they are bound to issue the policy in the name of person, which has been shown in the RC. As the insurance policy is mandatory under the law, therefore, the official of the Opposite Party told the complainant No.1 to get the policy renewed in the name of deceased and as and when the RC will be transferred in the name of LRs, the policy will be transferred in the name showing in the RC. The official of the Opposite Party knowingly that Sukhwinder Singh has died, inspite of that renewed the policy from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 agianst the payment made through cheque to the Opposite Party and cover note was issued from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 knowing that the person in whose name the cover note is being issued is dead. On 28.1.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident and claim was lodged with Opposite Party . The surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle and documents were demanded and all the documents were provided to the surveyor, the vehicle was damaged totally and it was a total loss case. All the formalities were completed. The complainant received letter dated 13.3.2015 vide which the claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy was not transferred after the death of insured within three months from the date of death of the insured. The complainant No.1 informed all the facts as narrated above regarding the filing of the complaint before Consumer Court, but they finally refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainants.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that Sukhwinder Singh had died more than one year back and till date neither the legal heir certificate has been submitted by the complainants to the Opposite Party nor the policy was got transferred by the complainants in their favour. As such, the complainants are not entitled for any claim on the basis of said insurance policy and the said claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 13.3.2015. The complainants had never approached the Opposite Party for the transfer of the aid policy in their names. Moreover, no such incident ever took place. When the complainant did not approach the Opposite Party for the transfer of the policy, the question of demanding the said documents do not arise at all and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. The only ground for the repudiation of the claim of the complainants is that Sukhwinder Singh had died more than one year back and till date neither the legal heir certificate has been submitted by the complainants to the Opposite Party nor the policy was got transferred by the complainants in their favour. As such, the complainants are not entitled for any claim on the basis of said insurance policy and the said claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 13.3.2015. But it is not the denial of the case that after the death of Sukhwinder Singh, the complainant No.1 approached Opposite Party for getting the policy transferred in the name of legal heirs of the deceased. The Opposite Party stated that for getting the policy transferred, the death certificate of the insured, RC of the vehicle showing transfer of the ownership in the name of legal heirs and the original policy are required for transfer of the policy and until and unless these documents are not provided, the policy can not be transferred. As the vehicle was got financed from the Indusind Bank as there was hypothecation endorsement on the RC, therefore, the officials of DTO refused to transfer the RC until and unless No objection certificate is not procured from the company which financed the vehicle. The finance amount alongwith interest had already been paid to the Indusind Bank, therefore the complainant approached the Indusind Bank for getting the NOC, but without any reason and cause they lingered on the matter and ultimately they refused to give the NOC inspite of the fact that there was no payment due towards the Indusind Bank. The complainant specifically stated that the NOC is required for transfer of RC of vehicle, but the officials of the Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC inspite of the best efforts made by the complainant. When Indusind Bank did not provide the NOC, the complainant No.1 had to file complaint in the Consumer Court which was filed on 3.4.2014 for seeking the directions to the Indusind Bank for providing the NOC of the vehicle to the complainant. Said complaint was decided in favour of the complainant on 22.1.2015 with the directions that the Opposite Party Indusind Bank will provide the NOC in the name of the complainant and directions was also given to the complainant for submission of NOC from all other LRs of Sukhwinder Singh to the effect that they have no objection, if the NDC is issued in the name of the complainant and direction was issued to the Indusind Bank for issuance of NDC within 15 days from the submission of No Objection by legal heirs. The legal heirs submitted that NOC on 20.2.2015 and the Indusind Bank provided the NOC, but the NOC was issued in the name of Sukhwinder Singh deceased and the date on NOC was showing as 3.2.2014, whereas the NOC was given on 20.2.2015 and the complaint was decided on 22.1.2015. When the complainant requested the Indusind Bank for issuing the NOC in current date, but they stated that the NOC has been issued showing the wrong date and it is a lengthy procedure to get the date corrected, therefore, the complainant accepted the said NOC. As the policy of the vehicle was from 24.8.2013 to 23.8.2014 and Sukhwinder Singh died on 12.2.2014 and due intimation of the death of Sukhwinder Singh was given to the Opposite Party , but the policy was not transferred in the name of complainant as the complainant could not provide the RC transferred in her name due to the reason mentioned above. As the complainant had filed complaint for NOC against the Indusind Bank on 3.4.2014 and during the pendancy of the complaint, the policy was due to expire on 23.8.2015, therefore, the complainant approached the Opposite Party for getting the renewal of the policy. At that time, the complainant again requested to get the policy renewed in her name as Sukhwinder Singh was no more at that time, even the complainant No.1 informed the official of the Opposite Party that she has filed the complaint against the bank for procuring the NOC which is required to get the RC transferred. The official of the Opposite Party told that they are bound to issue the policy in the name of person, which has been shown in the RC. As the insurance policy is mandatory under the law, therefore, the official of the Opposite Party told the complainant No.1 to get the policy renewed in the name of deceased and as and when the RC will be transferred in the name of LRs, the policy will be transferred in the name showing in the RC. The official of the Opposite Party knowingly that Sukhwinder Singh has died, inspite of that renewed the policy from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 agianst the payment made through cheque to the Opposite Party and cover note was issued from 24.8.2014 to 23.8.2015 knowing that the person in whose name the cover note is being issued is dead. On 28.1.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident and claim was lodged with Opposite Party . The surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle and documents were demanded and all the documents were provided to the surveyor, the vehicle was damaged totally and it was a total loss case. All the formalities were completed. The complainant received letter dated 13.3.2015 vide which the claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy was not transferred after the death of insured within three months from the date of death of the insured. The aforesaid facts and figures have no where denied by the Opposite Party while filing the written version or by any cogent and convincing evidence viz-a-viz through affidavit filed by Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, Manager Legal Ex.OP1. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of insurance of the vehicle in dispute, the Opposite Party itself has assessed the IDV of the vehicle in question at Rs.13,75,000/- and took the premium according to the IDV of the vehicle, but at this stage, the Opposite Party can not wriggle out from its liability to make good the loss to the vehicle in dispute, only on the ground that the RC was not transferred by the complainants in their names. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 has held to the following effect:-
“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.
The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that repudiation of claim has erroneously been made by the Opposite Party. The complainant is entitled to claim compensation to the tune of Rs.13,75,000/-as per IDV of the vehicle in question on total loss basis.
10. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,75,000/- to the complainants as compensation as IDV of the vehicle in question, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Party, by the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order until full & final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 02.02.2018. (Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma) Member Presiding member
