Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/378/2013

Manjeet kaur W/o Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Deep Singh

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

                                                                            

                                                                                    Complaint No. 378 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 17.05.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 18.09.2017.

 

1. Manjeet Kaur wife of Late shri Rajinder Singh, aged about 50 years.
2. Amandeep Singh son of Shri Rajinder Singh
3. Gurpreet Singh son of Late Shri Rajinder Singh
4. Gagan preet Kaur daughter of Late Rajinder Singh.

    All residents of Old Hamida, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                        ....Complainants

                                                        

                                    Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Fountain Chowk, workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its concerned Manager.

 

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Director, Regional Office, SCO No.337, 340 Sector-35-B, Chandigarh 160032.

 

                                                                                                                        ….Respondents.

BEFORE        SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.   

 

Present:           Sh. Ajay Deep Singh, Advocate, for complainant.   

                        Shri Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that father of complainant no.2 to 4 and husband of the complainant no.1 i.e. Rajinder Singh son of Bishan Singh was the registered owner of one Truck bearing N o. HR58-A-0867 and the father of the complainants no.2 to 4 and husband of the complainant i.e. Rajinder Singh had taken one policy from the OP No.1. The details of the policy are given below: Registration No. HR58A-0867, Engine No.15570, Policy No.420402/31/09/6300003063. The policy was valid from 27.01.2010 to 26.01.2011 and at the time of taking the said policy, the father of the complainants no.2 to 4 had deposited a total amount of Rs.15,611/-. Thereafter, it was very shocking to the complainants that the father of the complainant’s no.2 to 4 and husband of the complainant no.1 i.e. Rajinder Singh died in the month of March, 2010 and after the death of Rajinder Singh, the complainants being his legal heirs started running the said truck and policy was in continuing period. Thereafter, the truck was regularly used by the complainants and during this time, the truck was once sent to the Baroda (Gujarat) along with goods. However, the truck in question was stolen from Baroda (Gujarat) and an FIR was also registered at Baroda(Gujarat) regarding the theft of the said truck. Thereafter, the complainants and Police officials tried to their best to trace out the said truck but were not able to trace the same. In between the complainants submitted all the necessary documents to the OPs and intimated the OPs regarding the stealing of their truck. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants, at the time of intimating the OPs, had also handed over the necessary documents as required by the OPs and at the time of receiving the said documents the OP assured the complainants that the policy amount of the truck will be released as soon as possible as some investigation was still pending and the OPs, being such a reputed insurance company working in all India the complainants gave their consent.  Thereafter, the complainants many times approached the office of the OPs and requested to make the payment as soon as possible as the complainants are poor persons and their head of the family i.e. Rajinder Singh has already expired and they have got no other source of income for their livelihood. However, the OP again assured the complainants that the OPs will release the payment of assured account as soon as possible to the complainants. However, no such payment was ever made by the OPs to the complainants. However, the complainants were very shocked when they received one letter/intimation from the OP that their claims have been repudiated due to unavailability of necessary documents. However, on receiving this intimation the complainant again approached the office of the OPs and further submitted all the required documents and on that finally again the OPs assured to make the payment as soon as possible to the complainants and assured that letter was just a formality  and assured amount was to be released very shortly. Hence, this complaint. Wherein it has been prayed for directing the OPs to grant the assured amount of Rs.9 lac along with interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the claim of the complainant was repudiated on legal valid grounds and the complainant was informed about the fate of her claim vide registered letter respondent/opp. Party dated 28.02.2012. This Learned Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come before this Learned Forum with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OPs, a false, fabricated and fraudulent complaint has been filed with a view to defraud the answering OPs. It is further submitted that on the perusal of the documents supplied by the complainants, it was detected that Rajinder Singh, the insured had expired on 02.03.2010 and theft of the vehicle took place on 08.09.2010. The insurance policy remained in the name of insured i.e. Rajinder Singh. Hence, the insurance policy was not valid as on date of theft. As per policy condition No.10 in the event of death of the sole insured, policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of the insured or until the expiry of the policy (which ever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the vehicle passes may apply to have the policy transferred to the name (s) of the heir (s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle. There is utter violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. As held by the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI in the case titled The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane and as held by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in the case titled National Insurance Company Vs. Chuhar Singh, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The police was intimated only on 17.10.2010 and the FIR was lodged on the same day. The police was informed about the alleged theft after the expiry of about 40 days and the insurance company was informed after about four months. There is an utter violation of policy condition No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the police have not registered it as a case of theft. The incident recorded by the police viz to breach of trust is not covered under the policy of insurance. On merit, it is submitted that Rajinder Singh had purchased an insurance policy and insured his truck bearing No. HR58-A-0867 with the answering OP No.1. The said insurance policy contains terms and conditions which were agreed and accepted to by the insured. The net premium of the insurance policy was Rs.14,153/- and not Rs.15,611/-, as alleged. It is submitted that Rajinder Singh, insured died on 02.03.2010. As per the condition No.10 of the insurance policy, in the event of death of sole insured, policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of the insured or until the expiry of the policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heirs (s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the vehicle passes may apply to have the policy transferred to the names (s) of the heir (s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle. In this case insured expired on 02.03.2010 and theft of the vehicle took place on 08.09.2010 and the vehicle still stands in the name of Late Shri Rajinder Singh. The insurance policy was not valid as on date of theft. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence and the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order vide order dated 20.05.2016.

5.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office as Annexure RA and documents as Annexure R1 to R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7.                     The counsel for the complainants argued that Shri Rajinder Singh was the Registered owner of the truck had taken one policy from OP No.1. Unfortunately the father of the complainant no.2 to 4 and husband of the complainant no.1 Shri Rajinder Singh had died in the month of March, 2010 and complainant being his legal heirs started running the said truck. The said truck was stolen from Baroda (Gujarat) and an FIR was also registered at Badora (Gujarat) regarding the theft of the said truck. Intimation regarding theft of the truck  was given to the OPs Company by the complainants and completed all the formalities for settlement of the claim  but the OPs repudiated their claim due to unavailability of the necessary documents whereas the complainants have submitted all the required documents for settlement of claim. It is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the legal and valid ground. It is urged that Shri Rajinder Singh had expired on 02.03.2010  and theft of the vehicle took place on 08.09.2010. The insurance policy remained in the name of insured i.e. Shri Rajinder Singh. Hence, the Insurance Policy was not valid as on the date of theft and the complainants had no insurable interest on the date of theft of the vehicle. Beside this, it is argued that the complainants had lodged the FIR at a belated stage i.e. after expiry of about 40 days and informed the insurance company after about four months of the occurrence. The complainant have violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the OPs company have repudiated the claim of the complainants on the valid ground as per terms and conditions of the policy or not? We have perused condition No.10 of policy in question, which is reproduced as under: -

“In the event of death of sole insured, policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of death of the insured or until the expiry of the policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period legal heirs (s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred to the names (s) of the heir (s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle.”

 

It is not disputed that the truck in question was insured in the name of Late Shri Rajinder Singh, the husband of the complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 to 4. It is also not disputed that Shri Rajinder Singh died on 02.03.2010 and the theft of the vehicle was took place on 08.09.2010. It means that when the truck was stolen then the insurance policy was, at that time in the name of late Shri Rajinder Singh. As per terms and conditions No.10 of the Insurance policy, the complainants were bound to transfer the policy in question in their name within a period of three months from the death of insurer i.e. Shri Rajinder Singh. In such circumstances, in the absence of any insurable interest in favour of the complainants, they have no locus standi to claim the amount. Beside this, the complainants have not got transferred the ownership of truck in question in their name. Learned counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on Judgment reported in CLT 2016, Part I 173 titled as “United India Insurance Company Vs. Nasir Shah Bashir Shah wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that “when there was credible evidence on record that vehicle was sold by complainant and had no insurable interest at the time of accident, insurance company was not liable to pay any claim. In light of the aforesaid judgment, complainants was not entitled to any claim regarding theft of vehicle”.

            Learned counsel for the OP also referred the case law titled as “Surinder Vs. National Insurance Company Limited” wherein the repudiation of claim was justified by Hon’ble National Commission as FIR was lodged after 83 days of alleged theft. It was obligatory on part of the complainant to intimate about the theft immediately. Further, it is well settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in various judicial pronouncement that both the parties to the agreement are under obligations to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the agreement and none of the party to the agreement can travel beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement. 

            Even if it is presumed that the complainants were owner of the vehicle in question at the time of alleged theft and were having insurable interest, admittedly, FIR (Annexure R-4) under Sections 406,420 and 114 IPC was lodged after a gap of about 40 days from the alleged theft. Moreover, the theft is also not proved because the complainants have not filed any document regarding the fate of the criminal case registered against the culprits/accused. There was a delay of 40 days in lodging FIR which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of the policy , according to which immediate report was required to be lodged as such the complainants are not entitled to any claim in the light of the aforesaid facts and case law referred above.

10.                   In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.             

Dated: 18.09.2017

                                                                        (SATPAL)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                  D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                  AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER