Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1371

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovelohit Kaushal - Opp.Party(s)

Tajender K. Joshi

06 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 1371 of 2011

 

                                                Date of Institution: 09.09.2011.

                             Date of Decision  : 06.02.2015.

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through authorized signatory, Krishna Kant, Legal Manager, SCO No.135-137, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                                                     …..Appellant/opposite party

Versus

 

Lovelohit Kaushal son of Late Sh. Manohar Kaushal C/o Rainbow Enterprises 32-C, Industrial Area, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                     ….Respondent/complainant

    

First appeal against order dated 25.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     None

For the respondents        :     Sh. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (opposite parties in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent (complainant in the complaint) impugning order dated 25.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, (in short, “the District Forum”), awarding a sum of Rs.69,250/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment in

 

favour of the respondent of this appeal and against the appellant.

2.                 The complainant Lovelohit Kaushal has instituted this complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as "Act") on the averments that his late father Manohar Kaushal was the owner of the car make Maruti Alto bearing registration number PB-28-C-3399, model 2006 and he expired in November 2007. The complainant had been using the above car, being the legal heir of his father, since his death from November 2007. The complainant has been obtaining insurance cover for the above referred car even after the death of his father. The agent of OP No.1 visited the complainant at Malerkotla and issued cover note No.109000400023 and charged Rs.4472/- as premium thereon. The insurance cover was valid from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010. The complainant paid the insurance amount as consumer to the OPs. That the agent of OP No.1 assured the complainant that he has been given cover note in the name of his later father, in whose name the car was registered and he further assured him that in case any claim or liability arises, then the company would make the payment of such claim to the complainant. The above car met with an accident in May 2010 and was damaged therein. The complainant intimated the OPs about this accident, whereupon the surveyor was deputed for the inspection of the car by the OPs. The surveyor inspected the car of complainant by taking photographs and allotted claim number 2101123022 to the complainant. The complainant was asked to get the car repaired and was assured to give claim amount by the OPs. The complainant got the car repaired from M/s Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana (authorized Dealer of Maruti) by spending Rs.1,08,646/- thereupon. The complainant received letter dated 07.09.2010, vide which, insurance company repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that his father was already dead and hence insurance contract was void. It is further averred that the registration certificate of the car has since been transferred in the name of complainant. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint against the OPs directing them to pay the amount of Rs.1,08,646/- along with interest and further amount of Rs.50,000/- for his mental harassment and Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply raising legal objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint, and the same is not maintainable. That complainant is not a consumer of OPs under Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was admitted that father of the complainant Manohar Kaushal died in November 2007. It was pleaded by the OPs that complainant concealed the fact that his father was already dead and no contract can be made in the name of dead person and as such the contract is void. It was admitted that on receipt of intimation of the accident, the surveyor was appointed to assess the liability of insurance company, who assessed the loss thereof to the extent of Rs.69,248/-. The OPs controverted the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, insurance cover note Ex.C-2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-3, repudiation letter Ex.C-4, bill Ex.C-5, details Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-13, affidavit Ex.C-14 and copy of driving licence  Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal of it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Krishna Kant authorized signatory of OPs Ex.R-1, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R-2, repudiation letter Ex.R-3, surveyor report Ex.R-4 and thereafter closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Sangrur accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.69,250/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization and further to pay Rs.10,000/- towards his mental harassment and litigation expenses. Dissatisfied with impugned order dated 25.07.2011 of District Forum Sangrur,  the OP/appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
4.           We have heard the counsel for the respondent in this appeal and have also examined the record of this case, as none appeared for the appellant in this case. We find that since 25th July 2014, nobody has been appearing for the appellant in this appeal and hence we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of merits with the aid of evidence on the record. The factum of death of the father of the complainant namely Manohar Kaushal in November 2007 is not disputed. The car in question was registered in the name of Manohar Kaushal father of complainant, who was dead since November 2007. The premium amount of the insurance cover was paid by the complainant, being legal heir of his father, to the OPs. The OPs accepted the premium amount of cover note Ex.C-2 and insured it in the name of Manohar Kaushal since deceased with effect from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010, after receiving the premium amount of Rs.4472/- from the complainant. It is further evident from perusal of cover note of the policy Ex.C-2 that National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi, vide policy No.4346350 with expiry date of 30.06.2009 also issued the insurance cover of this car, despite the fact that Manohar Kaushal registered owner of the car was not alive. We have carefully examined the affidavits of the respective parties on the record as well as the documents. It is also an undisputed fact that the car met with an accident and was damaged therein. Admittedly, a surveyor was deputed for inspection of car by the OPs, who inspected it by taking photographs by allotting claim No.2101123022. Admittedly, the car was got repaired from M/s Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana by the complainant and copy of receipts and job retail invoices Ex.C-6 to C-13 further prove that amount of Rs.1,08,646/- was paid by Manohar Kaushal, who was dead since November 2007. The amount was evidently paid by the complainant and none else, being the son of Manohar Kaushal.
5.           Now, the only point for adjudication in this appeal is whether the contract entered into by complainant with the OPs of this car in the name of Manohar Kaushal, who was dead, is a void contract. There is no dispute of this fact on the record that Manohar Kaushal died since November 2007. Even National Insurance Company already issued this insurance cover of this car in the name of Manohar Kaushal, who was dead at the time of its issuance. Evidently, the premium could not be paid by the dead person to the insurance company and hence the premium was, thus, certainly paid by the complainant to them, and even in the instant case, the complainant is the legal heir of Manohar Kaushal, being his son. The registration certificate has since been transferred in his name as well, vide Ex.C-3 is on the record. There are affidavits of Madhu Kaushal Ex.C-14 wife of Manohar Kaushal and of Aman Kaushal and Dipesh Kaushal brothers of the complainant that complainant has been using the car as legal owner since after the death of his father. The premium was received by OPs from the complainant and not from Manohar Kaushal, who was dead at that time. It is version of the complainant, as proved in his affidavit and pleading that the agent of OPs assured him that the claim would be given to him because his father was already dead when the insurance cover was taken by him by making payment. There is no counter affidavit of the agent of OPs to rebut it on the record. The insurance company, thus, accepted the premium for the year of accident and car met with an accident and surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of this car.
6.           The complainant is legal heir of Manohar Kaushal and he has been paying the premiums for insurance cover of this car after the death of his father since November 2007. The OPs entered into contract of insurance with the complainant with regard to this car and it was not Manohar Kaushal, who was personally insured by the OPs. The District Forum has relied upon law laid down Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Nani Bai & others   versus Ishaque Khan and others, 1995 ACJ 292 that wherein insured has died many years before the accident of the vehicle and his legal heir had been paying the premium and insurance company had accepted the premium for the year of the accident in the name of the insured, it was held that the coverage is that of the vehicle and not the insured. The amount of Rs.1,08,646/- was spent on this car by the complainant, vide receipt dated 13.10.2010 (Ex.C-5) on the record. Job card retail invoices Ex.C-6 to C-13 further corroborate this fact. In rebuttal of it, the OPs only relied upon affidavit of Krishna Kant in this regard, policy cover note Ex.R-2 and repudiation intimation Ex.R-3. Even the OPs have not disputed this fact that car met with an accident. Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss of Rs.69,248/- by depreciating it under rule. The insurance was of the car and not of the person. We, thus, concur with the findings of the District Forum Sangrur in the order under challenge in this appeal. The District Forum has rightly awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.69,250/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization and further to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal.
7.           As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
8.           The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. The deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission along with interest, which accrued thereupon, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount as per order of District Forum shall be paid by the appellant/OPs to the complainant within 45 days of receipt of the copy of this order.
9.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 05.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

February 6, 2015.                                                                           

(MM)