DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 888/2017
D.No.____________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. KHUSHBOOW/o SH. PAWAN SHARMA,
R/o VPO LOHARI JATTU, PANNA PATIWAR,
MADHANA ROAD, BHIWANI-123032.
ALSO AT: VPO, QUTUB GARH, DELHI.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
SPACE No.315, 3rd FLOOR,
AGGARWAL CITY MALL, PLOT No.-04,
ROAD No.-44, PITAM PURA ROAD, BLOCK AD,
DAKSHINI PITAM PURA,NEW DELHI-110034.… OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.10.2017
Date of decision:18.06.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant’s mother purchased amotor car make Maruti Vitara BrezzaZDi+ bearing Registration no. DL-6C-P-8066
CC No. 888/2017 Page 1 of 10
on 11.07.2016 and the said car was insured by OP and the premium for the same was also paid to OP and the said car was purchased by borrowing loan from HDFC Bank and EMIs of the said loan was also paid by the mother of the complainant and the complainant was unaware of the same. The complainant further alleged that unfortunately mother of the complainant expired on 09.08.2016 and in the month of September & October-2016, the complainant went to the transport authority for intimating them about the death of her mother who was the registered owner of the said car and also to get it transferred in her name but it was told by the transport officials that since the vehicle was purchased on loan therefore OP require No Objection Certificate from the bank which has advanced the loan to get the vehicle transferred in the complainant’s name. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was regularly paying the installments of the said loan to the HDFC Bank but due to her constrained financial status she could not pay the entire loan amount and requested the bank to settle the loan amount so that NOC can be obtained and the said car can be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the said car of the complainant was stolen on 07.07.2017 and FIR no. 0273 u/s 379 was lodged at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi on 07.07.2017 itself and the complainant
CC No. 888/2017 Page 2 of 10
immediately informed OP about the said theft and filed the claim form alongwith the requisite documents on 02.09.2017. Thereafter, a closure report was also filed by the police dated 08.09.2017 before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi and in the meanwhile, the complainant was offered a settlement amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from HDFC Bank as full and final payment of the said car and the complainant paid the said amount vide a bank draft dated 30.08.2017 and the bank immediately issued NOC and other requisite documents for the transfer of the said car/vehicle in the name of the complainant and despite completing all the formalities of re-imbursement of the claim amount andon visitingoffice of OP no information was provided to the complainant about passing of her insurance claim and ultimately on 11.10.2017, the complainant received an e-mail from OP whereby the claim was repudiated by OP citing the terms & conditions on the ground that “Article III conditions 10: In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of insured or until the expiry of this policy . During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of motor vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle. Where such
CC No. 888/2017 Page 3 of 10
legal heir(s) desire(s) to apply for a transfer of this policy or obtain a new policy for the vehicle such heir(s) should make an application to the company accordingly within the aforesaid period. All such applications should be accompanied by, a) Death Certificate in respect of the insured, b) Proof of title to the vehicle and c) original policy.” The complainant further alleged that in the given circumstances, the complainant did her best efforts to follow the procedure to best possible extent and she had fulfilled all the formalities required for passing of the insurance claim but even then her insurance claim has been repudiated unnecessarily based on frivolous and vague grounds merely to cause mental harassment and OP has given vague grounds. The complainant further alleged that the complainant again and again visited the office of OP but her claim was not approved and the complainant was further deprived of her rightful legitimate money which is held up by OP till date and the complainant accordingly alleged that repudiation of the rightful claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to direct OP to refund the claim of Rs.9,19,604/- in policy no. 3001/118831472/00/000 of car bearing Regn. No. DL-6C-P-8066 purchased by the deceased mother of the complainant with all the benefits, an amount of
CC No. 888/2017 Page 4 of 10
Rs.20,000/- for causing deficiency in service, an amount of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and has also sought Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement wherein OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is not maintainable and there is no merit in the complaint. OP further submitted that the complaint deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground that the insured herein i.e. Late Sunita Rani has expired on 09.08.2016 and the loss date is 07.07.2017 almost a year and since the insured was not alive at the time of loss and the policy was not transferred to the legal heir within stipulated time, the policy in question cannot be said to be valid contract between the insured and the company and is a policy void-ab-initio and the insurance policy has not been transferred to the successor/legal heir which is a violation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1980. Chapter IV: 50 Transfer of Ownership: (2 ) where (a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, 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,
CC No. 888/2017 Page 5 of 10
accompanied with such fee and within stipulated time period i.e. 14 days intra state and 45 days inter-state-clauses (a)/(b) of Sub-Section (1) and as per policy terms & conditions: Article III, Condition 10: In the event of the death of the sole insured, the policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of insured or un till the expiry of this policy. During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes may apply to have the policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. Where such legal heir(s) desire(s) to apply for a transfer of policy or obtain a new policy for the vehicle such heir(s) should make an application to the company accordingly within aforesaid period. All such application should be accompanied by: a) Death Certificate in respect of the insured, b) Proof of title to the vehicle and c) Original Policy. OP further submitted that present complaint is deserved to be dismissed on the sole ground that the alleged theft (manipulated by the complainant) has taken place on 07.07.2017 and OP was informed on 30.08.2017, after the delay of 54 days and the complainant did not even bother to take any initiative to inform OP. It is clearly revealed in the policy wording that: As per Condition 1 of the Insurance Policy: “In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to
CC No. 888/2017 Page 6 of 10
the Police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.” OP further submitted that after getting information regarding the theft on 30.08.2017, OP appointed an investigator/surveyor to conduct a survey regarding the theft, that it is a settled law that a survey report of the appointed IRDA licensed independent surveyor is an important piece of document carrying legal sanctity u/s 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, which is to be given due consideration while determining the liability of the insurance company.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
CC No. 888/2017 Page 7 of 10
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed the written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of voter ID card, copy of R.C., copy of insurance policy no. 3001/MI-03840725/00/000 for the period from 11.07.2016 to 10.07.2017 (mid-night), copy of aadhar card of Late Smt. Sunita Rani, copy of death certificate, copy of Surviving Member Certificate, copy of FIR, copy of receipt issued by G.R. Services, copy of order dated 08.09.2017 passed by MM-02, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, copy of draft no. 347518 dated 30.08.2017, copy of NOC, copy of letter dated 16.08.2017 sent by HDFC Bank to the complainant, copy of Form 35, copy of acknowledgement provided to the customer issued by HDFC Bank and copy of letter dated 11.10.2017 sent by OP to the complainant.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. KrashanuPundir, Manager Legal filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per the written statement. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The documents and evidence of the parties shows that the vehicle belonging to the mother of the complainant was under hypothecation of the bank and the complainant settled the loan
CC No. 888/2017 Page 8 of 10
account with the bank and deposited settled amount vide a bank draft dated 30.08.2017 and the bank issued NOC in favour of the complainant. This fact is not disputed by OP. It is general parlance that the legal heir of a deceased person will inform the police about theft of the vehicle for the purpose of tracing the same and then to settle the loan account with the bank. The loan account with the bank was settled on 30.08.2017 so OP is not justified in taking the defence that the complainant did not take the steps for transfer of the policy in her name. Accordingly, OP is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
8. Thus, there appears to be no merits in the defence of OP. In these circumstances, this forum is of opinion that OP is guilty of deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP as under:
-
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
-
CC No. 888/2017 Page 1 of 10
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 18thday of June, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 888/2017 Page 10 of 10
UPLOADED BY :-SATYENDRA JEET
