Manjit Kaur filed a consumer case on 17 Apr 2015 against NIC in the Patiala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/321 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Apr 2015.
Punjab
Patiala
CC/14/321
Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)
Versus
NIC - Opp.Party(s)
Sh S p s Kohli
17 Apr 2015
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/321 of 18.11.2014
Decided on: 17.4.2015
1. Manjit Kaur wife of Late Mr.Kewal Singh
2. Manpreet Singh and 3. Hardeep Singh, sons of late Mr.Kewal Singh
All residents of Dera Jalandharian, Chaura Road, Sanour, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…..Complainants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Office, Leela Bhawan Market Complex, Patiala.
…...........Op
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh.D.R.Arora, President
Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member
Present:
For the complainants: Sh.S.P.S.Kohli , Advocate
For Op: Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate
ORDER
D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT
Late Kewal Singh, husband of the complainant Smt.Manjit Kaur and the father of the complainants Manpreet Singh and Hardeep Singh had purchased a car make Swift Desire No.PB 11-AV-1191 from Palwinder Kaur. The car was insured with the OP for the period 21.4.2013 to 20.4.2014 vide policy No.35101031136133059870. Late Kewal Singh had got the policy transferred in his favor having declared complainant Manpreet Singh as his nominee.
Said car of late Kewal Singh had met with an accident on 12.4.2014 at about 7.50PM near Paltina School, Sanaudi on Khanna-Samrala road when the same was being driven by the complainant Hardeep Singh while coming from Sanour to village Khanpur, District Hoshiarpur, when an Ikon car No.DL9 CC8738 was trying to overtake a truck and the same had hit against the car of the complainant .Complainant Hardeep Singh sustained multiple injuries and he was hospitalized in a private hospital. The car of the complainant was badly damaged. Complainant Manpreet Singh, who was also an occupant in the car lodged the information with the police of PP Bardhala, District Khanna vide DDR No.13 dated 13.4.2014. The complainant also informed the op regarding the accident and lodged the claim with them. The surveyor of the OP had given a report and told the complainant that the claim shall be processed in due course of time and in the mean time they may get the car repaired at their own expenses.
It is further the case of the complainants that the complainants spent an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in getting the car repaired and submitted the bills to the Op. However, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 16.7.2014 on the ground that the claimants had not got the policy transferred in their favor within the stipulated period of three months from the date of death of Kewal Singh. At this, the complainants served the op with legal notice dated 19.8.2014, which was replied by the Op. It is alleged that the refusal on the part of the Op to disburse the claim of the complainants is malafide and amounts to a deficiency in service. Accordingly the complainants have brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to disburse an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- spent by them in getting their car repaired and to pay them Rs. One lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Op.
On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. The Op has denied the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased Kewal Singh for want of knowledge. The Op has not denied late Kewal Singh having got the vehicle in question insured with them. It is denied that the surveyor of the Op had asked the complainant to get the car repaired. The surveyor Sh.Gaurav Malhotra was appointed by the competent authority and who submitted his report dated 7.7.2014 to the Op having assessed the damages/loss to the car in a sum of Rs.66,914/- but the same was not payable in view of the observation No.4 made by the surveyor in his report and the claim of the complainants has been repudiated as per condition No.9 of the policy terms and conditions. The Op replied the notice served by the complainants upon the Op through their counsel Sh.Alok Mathur,Advocate on 30.8.2014. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the OP, it was prayed by the Op to dismiss the complaint.
In support of their complaint, the complainants produced in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant Hardeep Singh alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C24 and the said complainant closed the evidence of the complainants.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, its’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.R.K.Jain, Sr.Divisional Manager of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP9 and he closed the evidence of the Op.
The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
Ex. C18 is the letter dated 16.7.2014 written by the op to the complainant Sh.Manpreet Singh on the subject: Claim No.35101031136196003948 POL.No.6133059870 VEH.NO.PB 11 AV 1191 and informed that they had received the survey report dated 7.7.2014 from the surveyor Sh.Gautam Modi, who while processing the claim made the following observations,
“ 1. Your father late Sh.Kewal Singh purchased this vehicle from Mrs.Palwinder Kaur and got the policy trfd. on his name on 5.12.2013.
2. Mr.Kewal Singh died on 22.12.2013.
3. This insurance policy was not got transferred in the name of legal heir after death.
4. Vehicle met with an accident on 12.4.2014.
5. Intimation of accident given to us on 18/19-04-2014 and surveyor Mr.Gautam Modi surveyed the vehicle on same date.
In this regard, we want to draw your kind attention to condition no.9 of the Motor Policy Vehicle Act which states in this event of the death of the sole insured this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the death of insured or until expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier).
From this observe we observed a clear cut violation of condition No.9 of policy. Hence your claim is no admissible”.
It was submitted by Sh.S.P.S.Kohli, the learned counsel for the complainant that the certificate–cum-policy schedule,Ex.C1 got by the deceased Kewal Singh does not contain any specific terms and conditions and even the endorsement certificate, Ex.C4 dated 5.12.2013 made by the op in favor of Mr.Kewal Singh does not contain any policy terms and conditions and therefore, it was submitted that reference of any condition no.4 in the repudiation letter,Ex.C18 dated July 16,2014 cannot be of any avail to the op because no such condition no.9 was ever conveyed to the insured Kewal Singh.
It was also submitted by Sh.Kohli, that the copy of the policy terms and conditions was got produced by the complainant by filing an application in this regard on 19.1.2015.
In this regard, it was submitted by Sh.B.S.Sodhi, the learned counsel for the op that the complainants could not make a submission that the original insured Smt.Palwinder Kaur , in whose favor certificate-cum-policy schedule Ex.C1 was issued, from whom late Mr.Kewal Singh had purchased the vehicle, had not received the policy terms and conditions. It is very much admitted by the complainant in para no.3 of the complaint that the car had been insured with the op vide policy No.31501031136133059870 for the period 21.4.2013 to 20.4.2014 and it is no where averred by the complainants that the original policy holder i.e. Smt.Palwinder Kaur had not received the policy terms and conditions or that she had not passed on the same to Mr.Kewal Singh, the predecessor-in- interest of the complainants and therefore, the submission made in this regard by the learned counsel for the complainant is not tenable.
Ex.OP3, is the Private Car Package Policy and the same contains conditions No.9 which provides: “In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy(whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle.
Where such legal heir(s) desire(s) to apply for transfer of this policy or obtain a new policy for the vehicle such heir(s) should make an application to the Company accordingly within the aforesaid period. All such applications should be accompanied by:-
a) Death Certificate in respect of the insured
b) Proof of title to the vehicle
c) Original Policy”
In our case, the insured Kewal Singh had died on 22.12.2013 and the policy had to remain inforce upto 20.4.2013. Thus the earliest time of three months expired on 21.3.2014 during which period the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased insured had to apply for the transfer of the policy in their favor which they failed to do so.
In the case of the citation New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.A.Kalavathi 2013(1)CPC 459, one Armugam was the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-18-8257 and he had obtained the insurance from the New India Assurance Company Limited for the period 30.5.2008 to 29.5.2009. Mr.Armugam died on 12.7.2008. On 19.3.2009, the said vehicle met with an accident. The complainant Smt.A.Kalavathi had spent more than Rs.2,96,412/- upon the repair of the vehicle. She made a claim before the Insurance Company, who repudiated the claim on 16.7.2009 on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant after the death of her husband. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. The matter went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission where also the order of the District Forum was upheld. In the revision preferred before the Hon’ble National Commission, reference was made to one of the terms of the policy quoted as follows:
“In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of the insured or until the expiry of this policy(whichever is earlier).During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes, may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle”.
8. It must be borne in mind that on his death, the husband of the petitioner ceased to be a “consumer” and their relationship as a “consumer” and the insurance company as a “service provider” came to an end. This is not a fact of mere technicality. It is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to get the policy transferred in her name. The National Commission in RP2964/2007,decided on 22.11.2011, took the similar views , the facts of the case are these”
“Smt. Ratna Jain, who was the owner of the Indica Car bearing No.AP 15P 6285, got the vehicle insured for the period from 3.3.2004 to 2.3.2005. Respondent/complainant purchased the said car from her and got it transferred in his name on 8.3.2004.Respondent alongwith his family members went to Vijayawada Krishna Pushkaram in the said car. The car was stolen while the family of the respondent were taking holy bath in the Krishna river. Respondent reported the matter to the policy who registered a case of theft in Crime No.260/2004. Respondent also obtained a final report submitted by the police before the Magistrate that the car was not traceable. Claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not settling the claim, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum”.
It was held that:-
“In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Tariff Regulations and the decision of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle. Petitoner Insurance Company was justified in not settling the claim”.
The said citation New India Assurance Co,Ltd. Vs. A.Kalavathi (Supra) is applicable on all fours to this complaint and we are of the considered view that the complainants having not got the insurance policy transferred in their favor within a period of three months from the date of the death of the insured Sh.Kewal Singh, they had no insurable interest in the vehicle and there being no contract of insurance between the complainants and the Op, the op was justified in having repudiated the claim of the complainant.The citation Mohinder Singh & another Vs. Kashmira Singh 1985(1)CLJ (C&Cr.)386 relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants, can not be applied to the facts of the present becase because it is not a question of inheriting the property of a deceased. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that inheritance does not remain in abeyance and heirs after the death of the last male holder succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Ours is a case to be decided with the help of the policy terms and conditions. The other citation Shri Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. IV(2007)CPJ 289 (NC), relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant also cannot be applied with advantage because there is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the citation that benefits under policy automatically accrue to new owner on transfer of the vehicle. In our case the preposition is whether on the death of the insured the complainants had got the vehicle transferred in their favor within the stipulated period as per condition no.9 of policy terms and conditions and the answer came in negative. As a result of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that there are no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.
Dated:17.04.2015
Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora
Member Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.