Haryana

StateCommission

A/937/2015

BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAROPTI DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL AGGARWAL

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      937 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.10.2015

Date of Decision :       28.09.2016

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Office at DLF Building Shivaji Park, New Delhi and at SCO 329, Sector 9, Panchkula through Navjeet Singh, Senior Executive Legal.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite party

Versus

 

Daropti Devi wife of Laxman Dass Ghai, Resident of 179/23, D.L.F. Colony, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:                    Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Bhupinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated September 14^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Daropti Devi-complainant/respondent, seeking compensation with respect to the damage of insured car, was accepted directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“……….opposite party is directed to pay Rs.400000/- (Rupees four lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.07.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

2.                Laxman Dass (since deceased)-husband of the respondent/complainant, was the registered owner of Toyota car No.HR-12Q-6369. The car was insured with the Insurance Company-opposite party from June 22^nd, 2012 to June 21^st, 2013 vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2). The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.7,10,000/-. Laxman Dass died on September 26^th, 2012. 

3.                On May 1^st, 2013 the above said car was being driven by one Vinod accompanied by Rajesh from Ambala to Rohtak. On the way, the car met with an accident and was extensively damaged. It was a case of total loss. Daily Diary Report (Exhibit C-7) was lodged with the Police. The Insurance Company was informed. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company inspected the damaged car and submitted report Exhibit R-5. Daropti Devi-complainant/respondent, being the widow and legal heir of Laxman Dass Ghai-registered owner of the car, lodged claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim. Hence complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The Insurance Company-opposite party contested complaint by filing written version stating that the insured Laxman Dass Ghai died on 26.09.2012 while the accident took place on 01.05.2013, that is, after about seven months. In view of condition No.9 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the complainant was under an obligation to get the policy transferred in her name within a period of three months from the date of the death of insured. Condition No.9 reads as under:-

“9.     In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes may apply to have this Policy transferred to his/her/their names or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle……”

5.                Since during the above said period of three months, the complainant to whom the vehicle passed, did not apply for transfer of the policy in her name, so the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

8.                Indisputably, the car was owned by Laxman Dass Ghai and it was insured from June 22^nd, 2012 to June 21^st, 2013. It is also not disputed that Laxman Dass Ghai died on 26.09.2012. Death Certificate is Exhibit C-5. The Registration Certificate of the car (Exhibit C-3) showing Laxman Dass Ghai to be the owner of the insured vehicle, is on the file. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant Dropati Devi on 24.01.2014 vide Certificate of Transfer of ownership Exhibit C-10.

9.                The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that in view of Clause 9, reproduced above, the policy remains valid for 90 days only from the date of death of the insured/owner.

10.              The point for consideration is as to whether the legal heirs are entitled to seek compensation for damage to the vehicle without getting the policy transferred in their names. A perusal of Clause 9 of the policy makes it exclusively clear that in the event of death of the sole insured, the policy will not lapse immediately but remain valid for three months from the date of death of the insured.

11.              Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Versus A. Kalavathi, 2013(1) C.P.J. 396, answered the issue in the negative. In this case one Armugam was the owner of vehicle which was insured for a period from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2009. Armugam died on 12.07.2008. The vehicle met with an accident on 19.03.2009. The claim lodged by the widow for loss to the vehicle, was repudiated. Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before District Forum which was allowed. The order was affirmed in appeal by State Commission. In revision, Hon’ble National Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and State Commission observing as under:-

“In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle. Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in not settling the claim.”

12.              The case in hand is squarely covered by A. Kalavathi’s case (Supra) because the complainant failed to get the policy transferred in her name within the period of 90 days as stipulated in Clause 9 of the policy. In view of this, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.

13.              In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

14.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 28.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL