Delhi

New Delhi

CC/947/2008

Shalini Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

      I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.C.C./947/08                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

1.SHALINI BHATIA,

G-206, PREET VIHAR,

DELHI-092

        ........COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., C-31/32, IST FLOOR, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-02

2. ANIL AROA, EXECUTIVE, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE, L-2/204 A, DDA FLATS, KALKA JI, NEW DELHI-019.

                  ……..OPPOSITE   PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

 

Member: Ritu Garodia

        The complaint is of deficiency in service on part of OP in repudiating the claim on theft of vehicle.  The factual position of complaint is that the vehicle was purchased on 2.4.2004 in the name of complainant’s grand mother and was insured in same name as that of complainant’s grandmother having IDV of Rs.2,80,000/- The vehicle was in question was one Santro bearing registration no. DL 8CJ 9081.  The complainant’s grandmother passed away on 18.11.2004.  The vehicle was transferred in complainant’s name on 4.5.2005 by transport authority and RC is annexed as Annexure A/4.  The complainant also got the insurance renewed by OP from 8.4.05 to 7.4.06 by paying the premium of Rs. 8,904/-.  At that time OP had assured the complainant of transfer of policy in the name of complainant but did not do the same.  The said vehicle was stolen on 27.11.2005 and FIR was lodged (copy of D D Entry and FIR are annexed).  The complainant filed a claim with OP who appointed a surveyor and confirmed the factum of theft. (Statement of neighbourers are annexed as A/8).  Complainant  has also annexed untraceable report as annexed A/9.  However, OPs repudiated the claim on 17.2.2006.  The complainant had been paying the premiums to OP on her account (photocopy of cheques are annexed).

        The OPs in their WS has stated that insurance was in the name of Krishna Bhatia (who is the maternal grandmother of complainant) and there was no privity of contract with the complainant.  They also submitted that they were not informed of the death of Smt. Krishna Bhatia and as such the insurance policy with dead person is invalid.

        We have given due consideration to pleadings documents on record.  The insurance policy for the vehicle Santro vide registration No.DL 8CJ 9081 and premium paid during the relevant periods is admitted by both the parties.  The factum of theft on 27.11.2005 is admitted and proved by FIR, DD entry, untraceable report as well as statement of neighbors.

        The only question in dispute is whether OP can repudiate the claim on the grounds that policy was not transferred to complainant’s name though transfer of registration certificate has been affected.

        It is well settled that in a contract of motor insurance, the subject matter of insurance form the basis of contract.  From the insurance policy, complete description of vehicle has been given including the registration no. and chassis no.  The complainant has been paying the premium by cheques drawn on her bank account as evidenced by the photocopies of cheques annexed and being accepted by OPs.  Merely mentioning the name of deceased Krishna Devi, will not vitiate the contact.  After the demise of Smt. Krishna Devi, the vehicle has been transferred in the name of complainant as corroborated by RC dt. 4.5.2005.  According to S.157(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the benefits of insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner, and accordingly, policy benefits were automatically transferred to complainant.

        We have gone through the judgment of Patna High Court in “Smt. Kiran Singh US Life Insurance  Corporation & others”  AIR 1983 Patna 142 wherein “In a case of life insurance policy, wherein it has been held by that Court that in the event of acceptance of payment of premium by the life Insurance Corporation before or after the death of the assured after the policy had lapsed, the Corporation is stopped from raising a plea of lapse of policy.  According to the Patna High Court, the acceptance of premium by the Life Insurance Corporation after the death of the assured amounts to waiver of a legal right that policy stood lapsed and that the Corporation is precluded from raising such a plea of lapse of policy.  The fact that the payment was received with or without knowledge of death of the assured is immaterial.  With the Corporation accepting the payment of premium, the claim of lapse of policy disappears.  The is no distinction between the acceptance of payment before death or after the death”.     

The complainant was paying premium on behalf of her maternal grandmother and OP is precluded from taking the plea of policy being in the name of deceased person.  When the hyper-technicalities and substantive justice are pilled against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former.  The OP cannot take refuge behind the technicalities to fulfill its obligation towards the insured.

        In our considered view, OP is directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of IDV of Rs.2,80,000/- .

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

President

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

Member