Date of Filing: 28-11-2014
Date of Order: 21-01-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 21st day of January, 2019
C.C.No.683 /2014
Between
- Mr.A.Kiran Kumar, S/o.Late A.Veeraiah,
Age: 38 years, Occ:Business
- Mrs. A.Nirmala, W/o.Late A.Veeraiah,
Age: 57 years, Occ: House maker
- Mrs. A.Azitha, W/o.Mohanarao,
Age: 35 years, Occ: House maker
- Mrs.A.Saritha, W/o.Late A.Veeraiah,
Age: 30 years, Occ: House maker
All are R/o.Flat No.504, Block-A, Manjira Heights,
Phase -1, Chitra Lay-Out, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad ……Complainants
And
M/s. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
4th floor, North-East Plaza, Besides BMW Show Room,
Erramanzil Cross roads, Khairatabad, Hyderabad ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainants : Sri K.Venkata Rao
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Mr.S.Pramod Kumar
.
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party being the insurer of the vehicle repudiated the claim and in consequence of it seeking direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- stated to have been spent for attending the repairs to the vehicle which was damaged in an accident.
- The complainants case in brief is Late Alla Veeraiah father of complainant No.1, 3, 4 and husband of complainant no.2 was the owner of the car bearing No.AP-20AL-3339 and had insured with opposite party under private car package policy for a sum of Rs.5,36,161/- by paying a premium of Rs.16,381/- covering the policy period from 24-10-2011 to 23-10-2012. The said car was registered with RTA Khammam. Late Alla Veeraiah the owner of the car expired on 10-5-2012 leaving the complainants as his legal heirs. The complainants have applied for legal heir certificate with Tahasildar of Khammam Urban Mandal and the same was refused by letter dated 30-11-2012 but the complainants have been pursing with the concerned offices to secure legal heir certificate. While the matter is stood thus on 02-09-2012 at about 9.30hours car met with an accident in the limits of Uppalapahad village on NH-65 when a car bearing No.AP28CH-3258 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed to their car. In the said accident the car got damaged severely and also injuries to inmates. On a complaint police of Kethepalli have registered a crime against the driver of the car bearing No.AP.28 CH-3258. On account of injuries sustained in the accident the complainants’ family landed in serious troubles and in deep trauma and could not regain normalcy. The opposite party was informed about the accident and also explained the efforts made by them with the Thasildar in obtaining a legal heir certificate and the matter was pending with the said office. Finally the Thasildar turned down the request of the complainants for issuance of legal heir certificate on account of the ban imposed and communicated the same to them on 30-11-2012. This fact was also brought to the notice of opposite party. In spite of it opposite party without giving an opportunity and explanation to the complainants rejected the claim submitted for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in attending damage is caused to the car in the accident. The complainants took the damaged car to the authorized garage to inspect it. The insurance surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected it and assessed the damage at Rs.3,95,000/- and same was spent by the complainants for getting repairs to the car. The opposite party repudiated the claim for reimbursement of the amount spent for repairing the car inspite of the fact that the policy subsists as on the date of accident and complainants application with filed for issuance of legal heir certificate was pending. Thus repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
- The opposite party filed a detailed written version admitting about the issuance of policy to the subject car and repudiation of claim but denied allegation of deficiency of service. The contest of the opposite party is the original owner Late Alla Veeraiah got insured the car bearing No. .AP-20AL-3339 in the policy bearing No.OG-12-1802-1801-0000-5589 covering the period from 24-10-2011 to 23-10-2012. After receiving of the claim submitted by the complainants the opposite party verified the documents and came to know that insured Late Alla Veeraiah expired on 10-5-2012 and the policy issued in his name was not transferred in the name of his legal heirs and said fact was also not intimated to the company for transfer of the policy and it amounts to violation of the policy conditions No.9 which reads that “In the event of death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for the period of three months from the date of death of insured or until the expiry of policy whichever is earlier. During the said period legal heirs of the insured to whom custody and the use of the vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred in their names or obtain a new insurance policy for the vehicle. Where such legal heirs wish to apply for transfer of this policy or obtain a new policy they should make an application along with death certificate in relation to the insured, proof of title to the vehicle and original policy. The insurance company reserves its rights to abide by any order of the Court in regard to declaration about the legal heirs and ownership of the vehicle and the nominee will not have any right to dispute such an order of the Court. The insurance company by letter dated 26-03-2013 intimated to the complainant above such process. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of it to the complainants as alleged. No contract of insurance subsists between the complainant and the company four months after death of insured. On receipt of the claim from the complainant the company has appointed an independent surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.2,34,000/- subject to terms and conditions but as the contract has expired with this company repudiated the claim and it does not amounts deficiency of service.
Since no contract of insurance subsist between the complainant and the company the complainants will not come within the definition of consumer as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The entire transaction took place in the Khammam District. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
In the enquiry stage the first complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint and he also got exhibited six (6) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavits of Sri R.Laxmminarayana stated to be Assistant Manager –legal of the company and that of one T.Harsha Vardhan an independent surveyor and loss assessor are filed through them four (4) documents are exhibited. Both the parties have filed written arguments and supplemented the same with the oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether a contract of insurance subsists between the complainants and insurance company and if so there is any deficiency of service on the part of the company ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The admitted facts are that the complainants are the legal heirs of the Late Alla Veeraiah the owner of the car bearing No.AP-20AL-3339 and he got insured the same with the opposite party and policy period was from 24-10-2011 to 23-10-2012 and during the subsistence of the insurance he expired as evidenced by Ex.A3 death certificate. As evidenced by Ex.A4 the said car was met with an accident on 02-09-2012 in the limits of Uppalapahad village on NH-65. Ex.B2 evidences, that the complainants have intimated to the opposite party about the accident involving the subject car and damages to it and in response to it opposite party asked the complainant to submit the legal heir certificate to proceed further in the matter. This Ex.B2 letter is dated 20-10-2012 but the complainants could not secure a legal heir certificate or family member certificate. It is the specific case of the complainants that they have approached the Tahasildar of Khamma Urban Mandal for issuance of legal heir certificate but it was rejected since issuance of legal heir certificate by the Government offices more particularly that of Revenue Department were prohibited in issuing the same. So the only option left to the complainants to obtain a legal heir certificate is to approach District Court by filing a succession petition and it is practically not possible to obtain a legal heir certificate or a succession certificate from the Civil Courts within a period of 3 months from the date of demise of insured.
The contention of the opposite party is that the policy issued by it to the subject car shall remain in force for a period of 3 months from the date of death of insured or till the expiry of policy period whichever is earlier and because the complainants have failed to get transferred the vehicle in their name by producing a legal heir certificate within a period of three months have the policy has lapsed but this contention of the complainants holds no good because as already said it is not in the hands of the complainants to get the legal heir certificate within a period of 3 months. Even in the absence of transferring the insured car in their name as long as policy subsistence, complainant can agitate the claim for reimbursement of the amount spent or the amount as assessed by the independent surveyor appointed by the opposite party. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party that the complainants are not consumers as no contract subsists has no legs to stand.
The complainants left with no alternative have obtained family members certificates in Ex.A6 on 20-1-2013 having failed to secure legal heir certificate from the office of Thasildar Khammam Urban Mandal. The truth or otherwise of Ex.A6 is not disputed by the opposite party. Similarly it is not the contest of opposite party that the complainants are not the legal heirs of insured Late Alla Veeraiah. Not only the opposite party even a 3rd party is not disputing the complainants claim as the legal heirs of Late Alla Veeraiah. Hence being the legal heirs of the insured they are entitled to ask for reimbursement of the loss sustained on account of the damage caused to the car in the accident which occurred during the subsistence of Ex.B1 policy issued by the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the opposite party filed two citations in New India Insurance Company Vs.A.S.Tewatoa 2016 (4) CPR358 NC and in the case of HDFC Egro General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs.Balraj Singh before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Revision Petition No.2523 of 2014.
The dispute involved in the said cases is failure on the part of purchaser of the vehicle to get transferred the vehicle in his name in consequence of purchase. Such a situation is not prevailing to the case on hand because it is not in the hands of the complainant to obtain a legal heir certificate from the complainants’ authority without which they cannot get transferred the subject vehicle in their name. Hence these citations have no application to the present case. Accordingly point No.1 is answered infavour of the complainant.
Point No.2: According to the opposite party itself soon after receiving of claim it has appointed an independent surveyor who submitted the report Ex.B4 on 5-2-2013 and assessed the damage at Rs.2,34,000/-. Since the damage to the car occurred in the accident during subsistence of Ex.B1 policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the said amount to the complainants. The complainants having claimed the spending of Rs.3,95,000/- have not filed any proof like bills for the purchase of parts and evidence affidavit of a person from authorized workshop and attended the repairs of car. In the absence of the same the complainants are not entitled for a sum of Rs.3,95,000/-. Accordingly the point is answered.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest there on at 12% P.A from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
- Complainants are entitled a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint.
Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 21st day of January , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Sri A.Kiran Kumar(PW1) Sri R.Laxmminarayana (DW-1)
Sri T.Harsha Vardhan (DW-2)
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex: A-1 is copy of Insurance policy
Ex: A-2 is copy of vehicle registration certificate
Ex: A-3 is copy of death certificate dated 18-05-2012
Ex: A-4 is copy of FIR
Ex:A-5 is copy of the repudiation letter dated 26-03-2013
Ex: A-6 is copy of family members certificate
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Exhibit: B-1 is copy of private car package policy schedule
Exhibit: B-2 is copy of letter issued by opposite party dated 20-10-2012
Exhibit: B-3 is copy of repudiation letter dated 26-03-2013
Exhibit: B-4 is copy of final survey report dated 5-02-2013
MEMBER PRESIDENT
