BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 54 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 25.02.2014.
Date of Decision:19.01.2017
Smt. Poonam wife of late Sh. Dharmender son of Shri Bani Singh, resident of village Tigrana, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
.….Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Company, Branch Office K Samne Bansi Lal General Hospital, Bhiwani through Branch Manager.
- Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Divisional Office-II, 2nd Floor, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Sh. Manoj Kumar Tanwar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the Martui Car A-Star VXI No. HR-16H/0472 in question was insured with Ops by the husband of the complainant Dharmender, now deceased. It is alleged that the insured died on 11.09.2012. It is alleged that the vehicle in question was during the insurance cover met with an accident on 08.11.2012 and the OPs was informed about the accident. It is alleged that she spent about Rs. 41,145/- on the repairs of the vehicle. The Ops have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. She visited to the office of Ops many times for claim but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the insured had died on 11.09.2012 and the date of accident was on 08.11.2012 and during the said period legal heirs of the insured did not get transfer the ownership of the vehicle and the RC was transferred in the name of complainant Smt. Poonam on 12.02.2013. It is submitted that the competent authority after applying its judicial mind found that no claim is payable in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle as per Motor Car Policy Condition No. 9 and the file was closed as No Claim and repudiation of the claim was duly intimated to the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel forcomplainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with Ops by the husband of the complainant Dharmender, now deceased. The insured died on 11.09.2012. The vehicle in question was during the insurance cover met with an accident on 08.11.2012 and the OP was informed about the accident. The complainant spent about Rs. 41,145/- on the repairs of the vehicle. The Ops have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that on the receipt of the information from the complainant regarding the accident a surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss vide surveyor report dated 17.12.2012 Annexure R-3 at Rs. 31,440/-. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 03.09.2013 Annexure R-5 because the complainant did not get transfer the policy in her name and the RC of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 12.02.2013. The competent authority after applying its mind found that no claim is payable to the complainant in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle as per the Motor Car Policy Condition No. 9. The claim has been rightly repudiated by the Ops and the intimation of the same was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 03.09.2013 Annexure R5.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the complainant at the time of the accident vide insurance cover note Annexure R-4. The counsel for the Ops has stressed that no claim is payable to the complainant as the complainant failed to get transferred the policy in her name and produced the condition No. 8, which is reproduced below:-
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 of 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.
From the bare perusal of said condition, it has been clearly mentioned that the policy will not immediately lapsed but will remain valid for a period of 3 months from the date of death of the insured or until the expiry of the policy. Further it has been mentioned that the legal heirs to whom the custody of the vehicle passes may apply to have the policy transferred in their name. There is two part of this condition one the policy will not lapsed immediately and will remain in force for a period of 3 months or until the expiry of the policy and the second part mentions that the legal heirs may apply for the transfer of the policy in their name. It is not mandatory and obligatory and the word “May” have been used. In the instant case the insured died on 11.09.2012 and the period of 3 months expires on 11.12.2012 and the vehicle met with accident on 8.11.2012, which means within 3 months from the date of death of the insured. As per the said contention referred by the counsel for the OPs, the policy was not lapsed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay 31,000/-, as loss assessed by the surveyor in his report, to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, thereafter the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the awarded amount till date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 19.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
