Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1505/2008

Harish Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Raliance Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 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./15058/08                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Harish Ahuja,

S/o Lt. Sh. Madan Lal Ahuja,

R/o. B-1/92, Paschim Vihar,

Delhi-110063                                  

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1. Reliance Insurance Company Ltd.

    (Anil Dhirubani Ambani Group),

    144, Hansyala Building,

    14^th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

     New Delhi-110 001.

 

2. Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Ltd.

    (Anil Dhirubani Ambani Group),

    144, Hansyala Building,

    14^th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

    New Delhi-110 001.

.... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Member  :  RITU GARODIA

        The complaint pertains to deficiency of service on part of OP in repudiating of claim on the insured vehicle.

        Briefly stated the facts are that vehicle Maruti Car No. DL 4C K 0370 was purchased by mother of complainant (now deceased) insured since 1990 and last renewed for a sum of Rs.68,000/- from 25.4.07 to 24.4.08 for annual premium of Rs.2,455/-.  The said vehicle was found missing on 16.3.2008, and FIR was lodged with Police Station, Paschim Vihar on 16.3.2008 which is annexed at Annexure C/7.  The claim was filed and subsequently repudiated on the grounds that the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of legal heirs.  OP in its reply has reiterated that the registered owner/insured had expired on 13.1.01 and as such there was no contract on insurance with the complainant.

        Briefly perusal of complainant’s Affidavit and material on record reveals that the vehicle bearing No. DL 4C K 0370 was insured on the payment of premium during the relevant period of theft and the factum of theft itself has not been disputed by either parties. It has been further substantiated by FIR placed on record.

        The only question in dispute is whether the OP can repudiate the claim on non transfer of policy in the complainant’s name. Decision of Himachal Pradesh State Commission dispute Redressal Commission in a similar case of “United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Master Varun has held:

“It is settled principle of law that the wife has insurable interest in the property of her husband and in the present case, in the vehicle which once belonged to her husband.  After death, Smt. Anita complainant No.5 and complainant Nos. 1 to 4 who are the minors and who have filed the complainant through their mother Smt. Anita, are the legal heirs of Sh. Vinod Kumar deceased.  All the complainants, therefore, have become owners by operation of law and have acquired insurable interest in the motor vehicle. In the aforementioned circumstances, it has become evident that Smt. Anita, widow of Sh. Vinod Kumar in terms of the contract of insurance has paid the premium on behalf of her husband and has discharged all obligations in terms of the insurance policy and nothing more was required to be done by her.  The fact that the insured was dead person, was not of much consequence.  In these circumstances, it would not be incorrect to say that the contract of insurance between the complainants and the Insurance Company in respect of this motor vehicle has come into existence, although the name of the insured Vinod Kumar has been wrongly mentioned in the insurance cover note.  It appears to us that either the name of Shri Vinod Kumar was inadvertently mentioned in the insurance policy or presumably his name was mentioned therein, as registration of the vehicle might have been in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar.  There is nothing to show that Smt. Anita, complainant No.5 or other complainants have taken undue benefit of the contract and as such in the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainants in any way have obtained the contract of insurance fraudulently and by suppression of material facts”.

        Similarly, the complainant in this case is son of the insured deceased having an insurable interest in the property of his late mother. It is now well settled that in a contract of Motor Insurance, the subject matter of insurance i.e. a vehicle bearing No. DL 4C K 0370 forms on the basis of contract. Once the premium has been taken by OP on the vehicle, it cannot deny the claim on mere technical grounds.  The complainant paid the premium on behalf of his deceased mother and complainant being the L.R. of his mother, OP is precluded from repudiating the claim as being in the name of deceased person. 

In our considered view, OP is guilty of deficiency in service and is directed to pay IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.68,000/-  with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization.  We also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony inclusive of litigation expenses.

Compliance of the order to be made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. 

File be sent to consigned to Record Room.

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

        Pronounced in open Court on 18.02.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

     President

 

 

(S.R.CHAUDHARY)          (RITU  GARODIA)

Member                           Member