ORDER

Naveen Puri, President.

The titled complainant, aggrieved at 'repudiation' of his caraccident total-loss insurance-claim on account of non-transfer of the related policy in the name of legal-heirs of the insured owner Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -2- (since-deceased) within the prescribed time-frame of three months; has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties.

2. The facts as placed-forth in the complaint state that the insured Hyundai i-20 IB Car (Magna) bearing RC # PB-35-V-5520 was owned by the complainant's father Late Sh. Som Raj who (during his life-time) had got it comprehensively insured for an IDV of Rs.3,85,313/- from the OP1 insurers vide Policy # 201120050317800194701000 valid w.e.f. 27.01.2018 to 26.01.2019 with the complainant as duly registered nominee, therein. Incidentally, Som Raj the insured/owner expired on 30.01.2018 & the situational status continued, as such.

3. The complainant further states that he had been using the insured car for family's tasks/purposes during the life-time of his father and continued to use it as such even after his demise on 30.01.2018 and somehow could not get the related policy transferred to his name on account of other pre-occupations and also being ignorant of the related terms of the policy, as these were never supplied to them. Moving ahead, it gets revealed that the insured car met with one road-side accident on 04.09.2018 while being driven by a family-friend cum valid driving-license holder Sh. Vijay Kumar, by name; the requisite DDR 13 (05.09.2018) was registered; the accident-damaged Car was towed to the OP2 Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -3- workshop for repairs and the OP1 insurers were duly intimated, as desired. As the accident-damaged car's estimated repair-costs by the OP2 vendor-workshop amounted to more than its IDV the OP1 insurers had themselves advised filing of the total-loss claim with them and that was duly filed, well in time. However, to the shocking surprise of the complainant the said claim was unceremoniously repudiated by the OP1 insurers vide letter dated 02.11.2018. The complainant further pleads having requested the OP1 insurers, in person as well as in writing also to pay the totalloss-claim to its full IDV amount but upon their flat refusal has filed the present complaint seeking issuance of directives to the OP1 insurers to pay him the impugned-claim for Rs.3,85,313/- with interest @ 18% PA from the date of accident till actual realization besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having inflicted physical harassment as well as mental agony upon him and another Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation. The complaint has been duly supported by copies of the documentary evidence as duly filed and exhibited herein as:

i) Ex.CW1 – Complainant's Affidavit;

ii) Ex.C1 – Car's R.C.;

iii) Ex.C2 – Insurance Policy;

iv) Ex.C3 – Death Certificate;

v) Ex.C4 – Driving License;

vi) Ex.C5 – DDR;

vii) Ex.C6 – Repudiation letter (02.11.2018) addressed in Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -4- the N/o deceased's father; Sic!

viii) Ex.C7 – Complainant's Aadhar Card. ix) Rejoinder and written Arguments by the learned counsel of the complainant.

4. The titled opposite party insurers (the OP1 insurers) appeared in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: To start with, the OP1 insurers have referred to the clauses/conditions of the policy terms under which the complainant has been alleged to have claimed benefit.

                  Section I: Loss of Or Damage to the Vehicle Insured: Vide which the insurer will indemnify the insured against loss or                               damage to the vehicle insured and here the complainant is not insured as insurance-contract was with his father Som      Raj;

                 Condition 9: In the event of the death of the sole insured the policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for three                     months from the date of the death of the insured …...... and within this period the legal-heirs need to get the policy                 transferred/afresh but that was never followed and hence the 'repudiation' in right order.

5. Further, the complainant has no cause of action/locusstandee to file the present complaint as he had no insurancecontract with them and besides the complaint has been totally false and frivolous and he has not come to the honorable court with clean hands so all its allegations are denied. Further, the insurance is a contract between the two parties and both are bound by its Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -5- terms & conditions and these cannot be increased or decreased. Further, there has been no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, the OP Insurers have admitted having insured the complainant's father's car that met with an accident on and upon getting intimation the OP1 had appointed the IRDA Approved Surveyor Sh. Vinay Sarasvat who had reported the death of the insured and non-transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant within the stipulated period of three months in line with clause 9 of the policy terms and hence the claim was rightly repudiated and there's no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has been senselessly claiming/ demanding the IDV amount in spite of having violated the policy terms. Moreover, the surveyor has estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,42,231/-. Lastly the OP insurers have sought dismissal of the present complaint with costs, being bereft of any merit.

6. The OP1 insurers put forth following documents in support of prosecution of defense as:

i) Ex.OPW1/A – Affidavit of Sh. Ashish Singh Tomar Legal Manager;

ii) Ex.OP1/1 – Repudiation 02.11.2018, addressed to Rasila Ram father of insured;

iii) Ex.OP1/2 – Claim form;

iv) Ex.OP1/3 – Motor Survey Report;

v) Ex.OP1/4 – Policy Wording

vi) Ex.OP1/5 – Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -6- Schedule. 

7. Similarly, the titled opposite party 2 Vendor-workshop appeared upon summoning through its counsel & filed its written reply primarily objecting therein that the complaint has been basically misconceived against it as they had allowed parking of the accident-ed-car for repairs assessment @ Rs.15,000/- and Rs.250/- per day as pre-settled fees that has presently amounted to Rs.5.0 Lac approximately; And, in order to avoid its payment they have been arrayed as one of the opposite parties otherwise there has been no instance of deficiency in service on their part hence the complaint's dismissal is prayed with costs. Opposite party No.2 in support of their pleadings has also filed affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria alongith copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/8.

8. We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘repudiation' of the car-accident total-loss claim by the herein OP1 insurers on account of the alleged 'violation' of specific clauses i) Section-I and Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -7- ii) condition 9 of the policy terms and conditions. We observe that the OP1 insurers here have totally ignored to produce any cogent evidence i) to prove that the policy's terms and conditions were ever supplied to the insured; ii) to prove that these terms and conditions do have stamp of sanctity by the IRDA or any other statutory authority and in the absence of that an ignorance of these terms and conditions do not amount to ignorance of law and as such do not warrant penal action/penalty etc. We also observe that the OP1 insurers have neither filed the requisite affidavits of its Surveyor cum Loss Assessor and in absence of these the related report stay back as inadmissible in the proceedings.

9. Thus we are of the considered opinion that the impugned repudiation of the accident total-loss-claim has been arbitrary against laws of equity, good conscience and natural justice. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the herein opposite party insurers to pay Rs.3,85,313/- to the complainant being the amount of the IDV and the impugned total-loss claim along with interest @ 6% PA w.e.f. the date of the complaint besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation and as cost of litigation within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till paid in Rajeev Kumar. Vs. Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. etc. C.C. No.496 of 2018. -8- full. The complainant is also directed here to execute and deliver his General Power of Attorney in favor of the OP1 insurers pertaining to the car-salvage lying at the OP2 workshop so that they may amicably settle their inter-se claims, if any.

10. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                                                                                      (Naveen Puri) President.

ANNOUNCED:    AUG. 10, 2022.                                                                              (R.S.Sukhija)  Member.