Haryana

Karnal

346/2012

Om Pati W/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Sharma

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 346 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt. 18.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision:15.09.2016

 

Smt. Om Pati wife of late Sh. Om Parkash resident of House no.162, Sector-5 Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO HOUSE IIIrd floor 34, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110010.

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager Branch Office Sector-8 Ist Floor building of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Karnal.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Ravi Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that her husband late Shri Om Parkash was the registered owner of Alto Car bearing registration no.HR-05-S-3471 and he got insured the said car from opposite parties, vide insurance policy no.500181567 valid from 12.06.2011 to 11.06.2012. He expired on 28.9.2011 leaving behind the complainant and three sons namely Parveen Kumar, Raman and Arun. On 25.02.2012, while Parveen Kumar was driving the said car, suddenly the lock of the bonnet had broken near village Shamgarh and due to that the front glass was also broken. The car was shifted to Modern Automobiles, Karnal and incident was reported to the Branch Manager, who gave necessary information to the opposite parties. Shri Y.K. Arora was appointed as surveyor by the opposite parties, who inspected the car and prepared estimate of Rs.25,583/-. The car was got repaired and an amount of Rs.10,497/- was paid to Modern Automobiles. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the opposite parties. Initially, the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other, but lateron repudiated the claim arbitrarily vide letter dated 26.04.2012. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service which caused her mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the insured had died, but the policy as well as Registration Certificate were not got transferred in the names of his legal heirs within three months of death. As per condition no.9 of India Motor Tariff the claim was not tenable, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 26.4.2012. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Parveen Kumar Ex.CW2/A  and documents Ex. C1 to C7 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Pallavi Roy Ex.O1, affidavit of Y.K. Arora Surveyor Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O3 and O4 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties that the car bearing registration no. HR-05-S-3471 owned by late Shri Om Parkash was insured with the opposite parties for the period of 12.6.2011 to 11.6.2012 and the same was damaged on  25.2.2012 during subsistence of the policy on account of sudden breaking of the lock of the bonnet. Shri Y.K. Arora was appointed as surveyor, who assessed the loss and submitted report Ex.OP4. After getting repaired the car, claim was lodged with the opposite parties, but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 26.04.2012, the copy of which is Ex.O3, on the ground that as per condition no.9 of India Motor Tariff the policy as well as Registration Certificate were not transferred within three months of the death of the insured by his nominees.

7.                Condition no.9 of the India Motor Tariff has been reproduced in the repudiation letter  and the same reads as under:-

          “ 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 heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes any apply to have this Policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance Policy for the Motor Vehicle.”

                   Registered owner of the car Om Parkash, who got the car insured with the opposite partied died on 28.09.2011. The car was damaged after his death on 25.02.2012, while the same was being driven by his son Parveen Kumar. As per the aforesaid condition no.9 of India Motor Tariff the policy was to remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of the insured or until the expiry of the policy, whichever was earlier. The legal heirs of insured Om Parkash could apply to get the policy transferred to their names within the said period of three months, but it is admitted fact that no such application was ever moved by them. Thus, the policy lapsed after expiry of period of three months of the death of insured Om Parkash. Under such circumstances, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner. Consequently, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member