DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/56/2018

Date of Institution : 03.05.2018

Date of Decision : 09.09.2019

1. Sukhwinder Kaur aged about 54 years wife of Shamsher Singh.

2. Gagandeep kaur aged about 32 years widow of Gursharan Singh son of Shamsher Singh.

3. Beant Kaur aged about 9 years.

4. Parneet Kaur aged about 3 years.

Minor daughters of Late Gursharan Singh son of Shamsher Singh (minors under the guardianship of their mother and natural guardian Gagandeep Kaur widow of Gursharan Singh son of Shamsher Singh, residents of Bhagatpura Maur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.                             …Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office : ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prbhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Managing Director. 

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 401 and 402, 4th Floor, Interface 11, New Linking Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 through its General Manager.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.1986.

Present: Sh. PS Kaushal counsel for complainants.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Sukhwinder Kaur and others have filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that Gursharan Singh son of Shamsher Singh  was the owner of Mahindra and Mahindra Verito which was having registration No. PB-19-P/5102. The said car was insured from the opposite parties vide policy No. 3001/117104567/00/000 from 9.5.2016 to 8.5.2017. Said Gursharan Singh died on 25.1.2017 at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Thereafter, on 7.5.2017 the said car was stolen from Near Truck Union, Bhadaur and an FIR No. 28 dated 9.5.2017 was got registered by Pargat Singh brother of said Gursharan Singh who was in possession of said car and intimation in this regard was also given to the opposite parties which was registered vide No. 06579899.  

3. It is further alleged that being the legal heirs of Gursharan Singh deceased the complainants lodged claim with the opposite parties alongwith all the documents as directed by the opposite parties but with no result. The complainants also got served a legal notice dated 8.12.2017 upon the opposite parties but to no effect, which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to make the payment of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum in respect of lost vehicle to the complainants.  

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that claim of the complainants is not payable as there was no valid contract between the insured and the respondent on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 7.5.2017 as the insured has already died on 25.1.2017 much before the date of alleged incident. Since the insured was not alive at the time of loss and policy was not transferred to the legal heir within stipulated time so policy cannot be said to be a valid contract between the insured and the company and it is also violation of Section 50 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The complainants did not implead Cholamandlam Investment Finance Co. Ltd as a necessary party with whom the vehicle was hypothecated. Further, complainants have concealed material facts from this Forum.  

5. On merits, the opposite parties submitted that deceased Gursharan Singh got insured his vehicle from the respondent from the period from 9.5.2016 to 8.5.2017 for an amount of Rs. 7,73,179/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further, no intimation regarding the death of Gursharan Singh was given to the opposite parties. It is further submitted that after getting information regarding the loss of vehicle the respondent appointed Rajiv Kumar Nischal Investigator to verify the genuineness of the claim who found that the insured was already died on 25.1.2017 and no intimation of his death was given by the complainants to the opposite parties. So, there was no valid contract between the insured and the opposite parties at the time of alleged theft on 7.5.2017. The complainants also failed to transfer the vehicle in their name as per the provision of Motor Vehicle Act so the claim of the complainants was repudiated vide letter dated 16.5.2017 as per terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and lastly the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of their complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Kaur complainant Ex.C-1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-4, copy of death certificate Ex.C-5, copy of legal notice Ex.C-6, copy of receipts Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered into evidence affidavit of Krashanu Pundir legal Manager Ex.OP-1, copy of policy certificate terms and conditions Ex.OP-2, copy of FIR Ex.OP-3, copy of investigation report Ex.OP-4, copy of death certificate of Gursharan Singh Ex.OP-5, copy of letter dated 16.10.2017 Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.   

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through. 

9. It is admitted fact between the parties that deceased Gursharan Singh has purchased one insurance policy Ex.C-2 from the opposite parties during his life time which was valid from 9.5.2016 to 8.5.2017. It is also admitted fact between the parties that said Gursharan Singh died on 25.1.2017 and his death certificate is Ex.C-5. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that car of the said Gursharan Singh was stolen on 7.5.2017 and an FIR Ex.C-3 got registered in this regard at PS Bhadaur. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that claim of the complainants was rejected vide letter dated 16.10.2017 Ex.OP-6. The main objection of the opposite parties for rejecting the claim of the complainants that insured died on 25.1.2017 and car was stolen on 7.5.2017, since the insured was not alive at the time of loss and policy was not transferred to the legal heir so the policy in question cannot be said to be a valid contract between the parties.  

10. The main question before us whether the opposite parties rightly rejected the claim of the complainants or not ?

11. For rejecting the claim of the complainants the opposite parties mainly relied upon Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under.-

“50. Transfer of ownership.

(2) Where.-

(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies or 

(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by or on behalf of Government.

The person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or as the case may be who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

The opposite parties also relied upon Rule 56 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 which reads as under.-

“56. Transfer of ownership on death of owner of the vehicle.- (1) Where the owner of a motor vehicle dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle may for a period of three months, use the vehicle as if it has been transferred to him where such person has within thirty days of the death of the owner informs the registering authority the occurrence of the death of the owner and of his own intention to use the vehicle.”

But in the present complaint the complainants have not taken any step from 25.1.2017 when deceased Gursharan Singh died till 7.5.2017 when the car was stolen to transfer the vehicle in the name of any of the legal heir of said Gursharan Singh which is clear cut violation of Section 50 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 56 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Further, as the deceased Gursharan Singh insured was not alive at the time of stolen of the vehicle on 7.5.2017 so there was no insurable interest of any person in the vehicle on the date of theft of the same. Further, the complainants have not transferred the insurance policy in the name of any legal heir of said Gursharan Singh so there was no valid contract between the complainants and the opposite parties.

12. On the other hand the complainants have failed to prove on the record that they have taken any step to transfer the ownership of the car in question after the death of Gursharan Singh. Even, they have failed to prove that they have ever intimated the opposite parties about the death of Gursharan Singh. Even, they have not transferred the insurance policy in any of their name so it is proved on the file that there was no valid contract between the complainants and the opposite parties at the time of stolen of the vehicle in question. 

13. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Goli Sridhar and another Revision petition No. 2964 of 2007 decided on 22.11.2011 held that Vehicle stolen and was not traceable. Claim was repudiated by the insurer. Complaint of deficiency in service was allowed by the District Forum and the State Commission also dismissed the appeal. Contention of insurer that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner accepted. Complainant purchased the vehicle but did not get novation of contract of insurance in person or property from the insurer. He did not have insurable interest on the date on which vehicle was stolen. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay insurance claim in case of own damage of vehicle. Insurer was justified in not settling the claim. Impugned orders passed by the Fora below set aside. Revision Petition allowed. 

This citation is fully applicable to the present complaint as in the present matter also the complainants have not transferred the vehicle and insurance policy in any of their name so they did not have insurable interest at the time of stolen of vehicle, so opposite parties cannot held liable to pay insurance claim. 

14. Further, we have also perused the copy of Certificate of Registration which is in favour of Gursharan Singh but the date of registration is mentioned as 9.5.2017 whereas the deceased Gursharan Singh died on 25.1.2017 so it is not possible to issue registration certificate in his favour on 9.5.2017 but complainants say nothing about this in their entire complaint and evidence about this. 

15. In these circumstances, as the complainants have failed to transfer the insurance policy and ownership in any of their name, so the opposite parties rightly rejected the claim of the complainants and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

16. As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, due to peculiar circumstances of the present complaint no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  9th Day of September 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member