Delhi

North West

CC/7/2024

MAYANK JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

EDELWEISS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINHA

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/7/2024
( Date of Filing : 03 Jan 2024 )
 
1. MAYANK JAIN
S/O LATE SH.SUNIL JAIN R/O FU-70,PITAMPURA,DELHI-110034
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. EDELWEISS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,FLAT NO.1016,1017,1018,NAURANG HOUSE,21 KG MARG,NEW DELHI-110001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Jan 2024
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

25.01.2024

 

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

  1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased father of the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL-2CAY-5522  insured with the OP w.e.f. 30.03.2022 to 29.03.2023. On 22.05.2021, Mr. Sunil Jain father of complainant passed away. It is alleged by the complainant that he informed the OP Ins. Co.  regarding the death of his father  at the time of renewal of policy in March, 2022. It is further alleged by the complainant that OP provided the online payment link to renew the policy in question and further assured complainant regarding the issuance of the policy in his name.

 

  1. On the night of 04.09.2022, the vehicle in question got stolen in front of the complainant resident. The intimation of the theft was given to police as well as OP Ins. Co. and the FIR bearing no. 02581 dated 05.09.2022 was registered. Vide order dated 27.07.2023 the Ld. M.M. Rohini Court accept the closure report. It is further alleged by the complainant that all the requisite documents in respect to the claim in question was duly provided to Ins. Co. for processing the claim. The OP Ins. Co. vide its letter dated 30.09.2022 repudiated the claim of the complainant assigning the reason that the vehicle was not registered in the name of legal heir/complainant and there is lack of insurance contract with the legal heir. Despite the fact that the complainant had paid the premium of the policy in question. Complainant being aggrieved with the repudiation approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

 

  1. We have heard the argument advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. D.K. Sinha and have perused the record.

 

  1. Admittedly, the father of the complainant died on 22.05.2021, the policy in question was issued for the period from 30.03.2022 to 29.03.2023 in the name of Sh. Sunil Jain deceased father of the complainant.  The RC of the vehicle in question is also in the name of deceased Sh. Sunil Jain. At the time of making the proposal for the insurance, the insured had already died and the insurance policy was obtained in the name of dead person so, it was not a valid contract. There is no privity of the contract between the complainant and OP Ins. Co. Although the complainant has pleaded that he had already informed OP regarding the demise of his father but after due consideration we do not find the aforesaid averments of the complainant to be convincing and legally sustainable in the light of lack of documentary evidence.

 

  1. It is a settled law that insurance policy cannot be issued in the name of dead person. Since the insurance policy is nothing but a contract, legally speaking there cannot be any contract with a dead person.

 

  1. Our view find support from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Manjit Kaur Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. in the matter of (2013) CJ-166 wherein it was held as under :-

where the registered owner of the truck was already dead, insurance policy with regard to truck could not have been issued in the name of dead person. As such, the contract/insurance policy is void ab-initio and the said insurance contract cannot be enforced.

  1. In view of the above discussion as well as the citation referred hereinabove we are of the considered view that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and insurance company and as the policy in question is issued in the name of dead person the contract of insurance is void ab-initio and not enforceable. We, therefore find no merits in the present complaint. Same is hereby dismissed.

 

  1. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on25.01.2024.

 

 

 

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                          RAJESH            

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                MEMBER

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.