Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/497

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Uma Shankar

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  497 dated 26.10.2021.                                       Date of decision: 21.11.2024. 

 

1. Baljeet Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh aged 54 years
2. Sunia Rani @ Anita Rani wife of Sh. Baljeet Singh aged 47 years

Both residents of H. No.1929/95, Ward No.64, Street No.6, Near Jain Da Theka, Satguru Nagar, DABA, Millerganj, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. PIN 141003...…Complainants

                                                Versus

M/s. ICICI General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 120, 4^th Floor Feroz Gandhi Market, Main Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Ludhiana, 2^nd address 3^rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 (Insurer of motor cycle bearing Registration No.PB-10-HJ-7331)                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act as amended up to date.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Uma Shanker Dwivedi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Karamjeet Singh son of the complainants, purchased motorcycle No.PB-10-HJ-7331 from Inderdeep Singh son of Sajjan Singh. Karamjeet Singh applied for transfer in his name vide application dated 26.10.2020 and as such, he became owner of said motorcycle after applying for transfer of ownership in his name and entire rights and liabilities qua ownership and insurance policy devolves in his favour. According to the complainants, Karamjeet Singh became owner insured of the motorcycle no.PB-10-HJ-7331.The complainants stated that unfortunately, on 26.11.2020, Karamjeet Singh met with an accident when he was driving said motorcycle and died on account of injuries suffered in the accident. An FIR No.290 dated 26.11.2020 was registered at Police Station Division 6, Ludhiana. His post mortem was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainant submitted claim with the OP in respect of the insurance policy No.3005/47950815/10976/000 having validity from 29.03.2020 to 28.03.2021 having personal accidental cover of Rs.15,00,000/- as well as covering 3^rd party risk up to 28.03.2025. The complainants further stated that they being parents of deceased are sole legal heir and successor in interest. The deceased was unmarried and he has no other legal heirs except the complainants. The deceased was having a valid and effective driving license issued from Licensing Authority, Ludhiana. However, the OP did not pay a single penny despite their requests and demands and rejected their claim vide letter dated 31.03.2021.  The complainants sent a legal notice dated 20.08.2021 upon the OP but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainants have prayed for issuing directions to the OP to make payment of sum insured amount of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant has not come with clean hands; suppression of material facts etc. The OP stated that on receipt of claim intimation, they entertained and processed the claim and as per documents submitted by the complainant, the OP minutely scrutinized the claim documents and rejected their claim vide letter dated 31.03.2021 in view of policy terms and conditions. The OP further stated that the complainants are not covered under the policy in view of policy terms and conditions and as such, the company is not liable to pay the claims to the complainants. Further the complainant had not complied the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in endorsement/transfer of policy of motorcycle. The OP Company has not issued any insurance policy to the complainants in any manner and as such, there is no privity of contract between the deceased and the OP.

                   On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in factual submission. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, complainant No.1 Baljeet Singh tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainants also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C20 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex RA of Sh. Sonu Rathi, Manager Legal of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R12 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both parties.

6.                The complainants being parents of one Karamjeet Singh (now deceased), are aggrieved of the rejection death claim of their son by the OP vide letter dated 31.03.2021 Ex. C17. The rejection/repudiation letter Ex. C17 reads as under:-

“Refer the claims documents submitted by you for the above-mentioned claim number. On scrutiny of the documents, we regret to inform you that the claim stands rejected for the following reason(s) as per the policy terms & conditions

Sl. No.	Policy Condition	Clause(s)
1.	Policy Certificate section B Liability	“There is no personal accident coverage taken for unnamed passenger under IMT-16 of Indian Motor Tariff”
Remarks	It is understood from the submitted documents and information that the claim has been intimated on the name of Late Mr. Inderdeep Singh, whereas the policy issued only to Mr. Karamjeet Singh with no coverage for unnamed passenger. Further it is noted that the policy got endorsed on 11-Jan-2021 and date of accident is on 26-Nov-2020. Hence the same falls outside the purview of policy terms and conditions.

 

7.                Now the point of determination arises before this Commission is that whether the repudiation of claim of the complainant is justified or not?

8.                Originally one Inderdeep Singh S/o. Sh. Sajjan Singh was the registered owner of the motor cycle No.PB-10-HJ-7331 and was holder of a Bundled-Two Wheeler Policy (1 Yr OD + 5 Yrs TP) bearing No.3005/47950815/10976/000 Ex. C4 having validity from 29.03.2020 to 28.03.2025. The said policy also includes compulsory coverage for Personal Accidental a sum assured of Rs.15,00,000/-.

9.                The Compulsory Personal Accidental cover was subject to conditions, firstly the owner/driver must be a registered owner of the vehicle in question and secondly this cover was available to the insured named in the policy and finally he must hold an effective driving license in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 at the time of accident. As stipulated in the “General Exceptions” of the policy, the company was not liable under the policy in respect of any claim arising out of contractual liability. Further the policy did not extend any coverage for unnamed passenger.

10.              In the present case, the deceased Karamjeet Singh paid the requisite fees vide receipt Ex. C3 dated 26.10.2020 and applied for transfer of the vehicle in his name and which was subsequently reflected in RC Ex. C1 w.e.f. 29.03.2020 to 28.03.2035. Unfortunately, on 26.11.2020, Karamjeet Singh died due to an accident and by that time, endorsement with regard to transfer of insurable interest has not been effected in the policy documents itself. It finally happened on 11.01.2021. So it is evident that there was no privity of contract between the deceased and the OP at the time of the accident and deceased was not nominated registered owner in the policy.

11.              The counsel for the complainants has drawn the attention of this Commission towards Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act and contended that the claim is payable by virtue of this section which provides the concept of deemed transfer of ownership. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs The New India Insurance Company Limited 2020 INSC 434.

12.               On the other hand, the counsel for the OP submitted that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act has application of only in case of 3^rd party liability. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulation Private Limited Vs New India Assurance Company Limited (1996) 1 SCC 221.

13.              We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the counsel for the parties.

14.              Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaswinder Singh Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others (2024) LiveLaw (SC) 190 considered the aforesaid citations and referred the matter to the bench of three judges on 27.02.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.6 and 7 of the judgments made the following observations:-

“6. It is important to note that the decision in Complete Insulations (supra) is by a bench of 3 judges and the decision is categorical in its finding that Section 157 of the 1988 Act has no application to third-party liability. Though the judgment in Complete Insulations is referred to in the Surendra Kumar Bhilawe, the portion that we have extracted and referred to hereinabove has not been noticed. It is therefore necessary to reconcile these 2 decisions as the judgment in Complete Insulations is by a 3-judges bench, it is appropriate that the matter be placed before a bench of 3 judges.

7. Apart from the difficulty in reconciling the two judgments, as indicated above, the issue relating to deemed transfer of insurance policy, as a principle akin to that of which is incorporated in Section 157 for 3rd party liability is to be considered by interpreting the other provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is also an important issue which requires consideration and authoritative determination.”

 

As a sequel of above discussion, it is concluded that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the repudiation of the claim is justified. Therefore, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

15.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.11.2024.

Gobind Ram.