Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No.:152
Instituted on :02.03.2020
Decided on :14.11.2024
Parvinder Malik age 40 years, w/o Late Sh. Satyawan R/o H.No.59/9, BasantVihar, Gali No.3, Rohtak(Haryana).
………...Complainant
Vs
IffcoTokkio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Off: IffcoSadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Branch Manager, Office at 2nd Floor, SCO 400-401, 402, HDFC Bank Building, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
………...Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anurag Saharan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. PuneetChahal, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that her husband namely Satyawan was registered owner of Scorpio Car bearing Regn. No.HR-12AC-5886 and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.M6249224 valid from 24.02.2019 to 23.02.2020. The total insured declare value of vehicle was Rs.1279000/-. On 27.02.2019 JoginderShokeen had borrowed the said vehicle from the brother-in-law of the complainant and he went to Gurugram. The said JoginderShokeen took the aforesaid vehicle at Gurugramand he parked the vehicle in Sector-40, near house no.928-929 and when he returned back at around 10:30 P.M, he found that the aforesaid vehicle was not there. He made a PCR call at about 10:50 P.M and informed the police about the incident. Thereafter, a PCR rider came at the spot and asked the said Joginder to report the matter at P.S.Sector 40 on the next day. Accordingly he lodged an FIR No.0085 dated 01.03.2019 u/s 379 IPC at P.S. Sector 40 Gurugram. Complainant also informed the opposite party immediately after the incident. Officials of the opposite party demanded some documents which were submitted by the complainant. But the opposite party vide its letter dated 13.11.2019 had repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that the policy in existence was in the name of her husband, however he has already been died and the policy in question was in the name of dead person. . The complainant could not get the aforesaid vehicle transferred after the death of her husband as she was not aware about it, however, she used to pay premium towards policy regularly to the respondent and this fact is not matter in issue. Complainant requested the opposite party many a times to pay the genuine claim of aforesaid vehicle but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of IDV i.e. Rs.1279000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of incident till its realization and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that on receipt of belated intimation on 12.03.2019 about the theft of vehicle bearing no.HR12AC5886, reportedly stolen on 27.02.2019, the respondent appointed M/s Davel& Associates, an independent investigation agency to investigate into the reported claim. The said investigating agency has submitted its report to the opposite party. On perusal of the investigation report and documents and record it has been emerged that the insured-registered owner of the vehicle Sh. Satyawan was passed away a long time back on 11.12.2017 and thereafter no steps were taken by the legal heirs of the deceased to get the registration of vehicle transferred in their name within a period of 30 days as prescribed by law and insurance policy in question w.e.f. 24.02.2019 also obtained in the name of deceased i.e. Late Sh. Satyawan without disclosing the very important fact of demise of registered owner of vehicle, hence contract itself is void. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter dated 13.11.2019. So there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party by rejecting the claim of the complainant and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence on 15.03.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party has tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9and closed his evidence on 06.11.2023.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that insured-registered owner of the vehicle Sh. Satyawan was passed away a long time back on 11.12.2017 and thereafter no steps were taken by the legal heirs of the deceased to get the registration of vehicle transferred in their name within a period of 30 days as prescribed by law and insurance policy in question w.e.f. 24.02.2019 also obtained in the name of deceased i.e. Late Sh. Satyawan without disclosing the very important fact of demise of registered owner of vehicle, hence contract itself is void. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The date of death of registered owner of the vehicle as per death certificate Ex.C7 is 11.12.2017. The vehicle in question was stolen on 27.02.2019 and FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle was got registered on 01.03.2019. Hence it is proved that the owner of the vehicle had already died much before the date of theft. The complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that she had ever applied for transfer of policy in her name or in the name of any L.R. of the deceased. As per the complainant the vehicle in question was fully insured on the date of theft and to prove the same she has placed on record copy of policy Ex.C3 w.e.f. 24.02.2019 to 23.02.2020. No doubt the policy was in existence at the time of theft of vehicle but the contract of insurance was not valid as the owner of vehicle had already died much before the date of theft. In this regard. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18.08.2017 of Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi in Revision Petition no.3337 of 2016 titled as Nirasha Sinha Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., as per which Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “The contract in the name of a dead person being a nullity in the eye of law, the insurer is not bound to make any payment to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by her due to accident of the insured vehicle”. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.09.2014 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Sarla Jain and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and judgment dated 21.08.2018 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled as IffcoTokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Dushyant etc., as per which the Hon’ble Commissions havegiven the same finding. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
6. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.11.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
TriptiPannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
