BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 613 of 2015
Date of Institution :7.10.2015
Date of Decision : 23.6.2016
- Gaurav Walia s/o late Satish Kumar Walia ;
- Meena Walia widow of Satish Kumar Walia ;
- Ganisha Walia D/o late Satish Kumar Walia ;
All residents of H.No. 14E, Gali No.2, Dayanand Nagar, Lawrence Road, Amritsar
..Complainants
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., having head office at 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata 700071 through its General Manager
- National Insurance Company Ltd., having Division office II situated at 26-D, Court Road, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager
….Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Nitin Madaan,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties 1&2: Sh. Vikas Mahajan,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Gaurav Walia & Others , complainants have brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainants are law abiding citizens of India. The vehicle Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.PB-02-T-0056 having Engine No. 13617, Chassis No.10154 was got insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 401901/31/14/6100001188 which was issued by the branch office situated at Opp. Thums Up Factory, G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as IDV of vehicle for the period from 3.6.2014 to 2.6.2015 on payment of Rs. 7847/- as premium. Photocopy of the Insurance policy is attached. The vehicle Tata Indigo car bearing registration No. PB-02-T-0056 was registered in the name of Satish Kumar Walia, who died on 5.7.2013. Complainants have filed the present complaint being legal representatives of Satish Kumar Walia. The abovesaid car met with an accident on 14.8.2014 at Amritsar due to which the vehicle got badly damaged. Intimation regarding accident was given to the opposite party on the same day. Complainant No.1 got the insured vehicle repaired from Kapoor Auto Mobiles situated at opposite Khanna Mill, Amritsar on payment of Rs. 30000/- as repair charges. Complainant No.1 approached opposite parties for making the payment of Rs. 30000/- i.e. repair charges as complainant had obtained comprehensive insurance policy of the vehicle bearing No. PB-02-T-0056, the total value of which was Rs. 3,50,000/-. All the formalities were got done and all the documents were provided to local branch office of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties, despite best efforts on the part of the complainant, failed to pay the claim amount to the complainants. Complainant No.1 also sent legal notice to the opposite parties in this regard on 16.6.2015 through his counsel. Opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 17.6.2015 intimated the counsel of the complainants that no such policy is found after checking of record by them. In response to letter dated 17.6.2015 issued by opposite party No.2 , counsel for the complainants vide letter dated 16.7.2015 sent copy of insurance policy of abovesaid vehicle to opposite party No.2 for further proceedings as well as for giving reply to legal notice dated 16.6.2015 but till date opposite parties have failed to give reply to legal notice of the complainants. Opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss sustained due to the accident of the aforesaid vehicle which was duly insured with them at the time of the accident. That period of more than one year has already elapsed but opposite parties have failed to make the payment of claim amount to the complainant The complainants have sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
a) Present complaint may be accepted and opposite parties be directed to make payment of Rs. 30000/ alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from date of accident till realization .
b) Compensation of Rs. 20000/- may also be awarded on account of physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is legally not maintainable as the same is an abuse of process of the court ; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite parties as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite party vide letter dated 2.1.2015 informed the complainants that their claim has been closed as “No claim” as vide letter dated 17.12.2014 complainant was informed that as per surveyor report dated 13.12.2014 of Mr. Rajeev Babbar, Mr. Satish Kumar Walia had already died even before the commencement of insurance policy. Opposite party had informed the complainant to make a reply within 7 days otherwise claim file will be closed as No claim, but the complainant did not give any reply to letter dated 17.12.2014 and hence the claim case was closed. On merits, it is denied that accident took place on 14.8.2014 at Amritsar due to which Tata Indigo car bearing No.PB-02-T-0056 got badly damaged. It is denied that intimation regarding the accident was given to the opposite parties on the same day. It is submitted that complainant No.1 sent legal notice to the opposite parties on 16.6.2015 and opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 17.6.2015 intimated the counsel of the complainant that no policy is found after checking of record. It is admitted that in response to letter dated 17.6.2015 counsel of the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2015 sent copy of Insurance policy of Tata Indigo car bearing No. PB-02-T-0056 for further proceedings. Opposite party vide letter dated 7.9.2015 gave a detailed reply to legal notice dated 16.6.2015. It is denied that opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss sustained due to accident of abovesaid vehicle which was duly insured with the opposite party at the time of accident. Opposite party vide letter dated 2.1.2015 informed the complainant that his claim has been closed as No claim vide letter dated 17.12.2014. Complainant was informed that as per surveyor report dated 13.12.2014 of Mr. Rajeev Babbar, Mr. Satish Kumar Walia had died even before the commencement of policy. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint have also been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In their bid to prove the case, Sh.Nitin Madaan,Adv.counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of Sh.Gaurav Walia Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Vikas Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh.Swaran Singh Sohi, Sr.Branch Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. On the basis of the evidence on record,ld.counsel for the complainants has vehemently contended that it is an admitted fact that vehicle Tata Indigo car bearing registration No. PB-02-T-0056, Engine No.13617, Chassis No. 10154 was got insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 401901/31/14/6100001188 which was issued by branch office situated at Opp.Thums up Factory, G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for a period w.e.f.3.6.2014 to 2.6.2015 on payment of premium of Rs. 7847/-. Copy of the Insurance policy accounts for Ex.C-7. The vehicle Tata Indigo car bearing registration No.PB-02-T-0056 was registered in the name of Satish Kumar Walia, who died on 5.7.2013. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 14.8.2014 at Amritsar on account of which the vehicle was badly damaged. Intimation regarding the accident was duly sent to the opposite parties immediately. It is also in evidence that complainant No.1 got the car in dispute repaired from kapoor Auto Mobiles on payment of Rs. 30000/- as repair charges. The complainant applied for reimbursement of the repair charges of the vehicle in dispute to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not make any payment and the claim of the complainants has been filed as “No claim” without assigning any legal and valid reason. It is contended that the complainants are entitled for the payment of the repair charges as well compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and besides that complainants may also be awarded litigation expenses to be issued by this Forum.
7. But however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evidence that Satish Kumar Walia , registered owner of the vehicle in dispute died on 5.7.2013 while the Insurance policy in dispute was issued on 3.6.2014. The very fact that the Insurance policy in dispute was void abinitio at the time of its issuance because it was issued in the name of a dead person and the same cannot be said to be in operation at the time when the accident allegedly took place on 14.8.2014. Since there was no valid insurance contract in existence inter-se parties, therefore, the opposite parties were not under legal obligation to make payment of the Insurance claim to the complainants. Even, otherwise also, registration of the vehicle in dispute was not in the name of the complainants at the relevant time when accident took place nor the insurance was mutated in the name of the complainants after the death of alleged insured Satish Kumar Walia . Since Insurance policy in dispute was void abinitio, no claim on the basis of said insurance policy could be sought for by the complainants. Reliance in this respect can be had on United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Appellant Vs. Sharda Devi & Ors-Respondents 2005(4) CPJ 258 of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, wherein it has been laid down that the insurance was obtained in the name of Indrabhushan Sinha who had already expired on 14.12.1993. It is not in dispute that Indrabhushan Sinha was the owner of the vehicle. He however, expired on 14.12.1993. The policy was issued, covering the risk for the period from 30.5.1995 to 29.5.1996. The incident took place on 29.6.1995. However, since one of the parties to the agreement had already expired on 14.12.1993 i.e. much before the issuance of policy, the policy document which forms the agreement between the parties was void abinitio in view of the death of Indrabhushan Sinha much earlier to the said alleged agreement. In view of the above, the complainants were not entitled to any relief under the said policy. Consequently, it is clear that the District Forum erred in awarding compensation to the complainant/respondent. Accordingly, appeal is allowed . The impugned order is set-aside. The complaint stands dismissed.
8. The ratio laid down by the judgement (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case on all its fours. As such instant complaint fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 23.6.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
