D.O.F. 04.05.2011

                                            D.O.O. 02.01.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 2^nd day of January, 2014.

C.C.No.144/2011

Loosy Mathew,

W/o. Mathew Ninan                                             :         Complainant

Puthuparambil House,

Chemperi P.O.

Taliparamba Taluk

Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. Saji Zacharias)

1.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

   Reg.Office-19, Reliance Centre, Walchand,

   Hirachand Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai.        :         Opposite Parties  

2. Branch Manager

    Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd

    Adithya Towers, Kannur

(Both Rep. by Adv. S. Mammu)

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `3,25,630 with interest @12%. 

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Complainant is the wife of insured, the registered owner of the vehicle KL 59-6666.  The vehicle was insured with the opposite party.  On the expiry of the policy complainant approached 2^nd opposite party to get the policy in her name of her husband for the period 24.05.2009 to 23.05.2010.  The vehicle met with an accident on 27.11.2011.  1^st opposite party appointed Surveyor and he submitted report stating `2,27,717 as damage caused to the vehicle.  But 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that he was not eligible for the claim since complainant was having no valid policy coverage at the time of accident due to the reason that the R.C.Owner died prior to the accident.  Thereafter the company issued a letter to the husband to renew the policy from 23.05.2010 and renewed the policy. The denial of policy is without valid reasons.  Hence this complaint.

Opposite party filed version admitting the policy in the name of Mr. Mathew Ninan, husband of the complainant for the period 24.05.2009 to 23.05.2010.  Further conditions of opposite party in brief are as follows :  The insured was no more on the date of accident and the death was not duly informed to opposite parties.  There is no priority of contract between opposite party and complainant and complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle as there is no valid policy in her name.  The complainant has not taken any steps to transfer the policy in the name of legal heir.  The averment that the vehicle sustained damage and informed to opposite party and as per instruction of opposite parties repaired the vehicle spending `2,27,717 are not correct. 

The assessment of loss is subjected to the terms and conditions of policy.  The calculation of loss is also subjected to depreciation and deduction of certain components excluded by the terms and conditions.   There is no fraud or unfair trade practice.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 marked on the side of the complainant.  No evidence adduced on the part of opposite party.

Issues No.1 to 3:

          Admittedly the policy in question remained in the name of the husband of the complainant at the time of the alleged accident.  Claim of the complainant was rejected on the reason that neither the insured had been alive at the time of accident nor the policy had been transferred in the name of the legal heir.  It is also contended that there is no insurable interest to the petitioner.

          What is pleaded by the complainant is that after the expiry of the policy the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to get a policy in her favour and the 2^nd opposite party issued the policy in the name of the husband.  Opposite party specifically contended that the complainant has not taken any steps to transfer the policy in the name of legal heir as per the stipulations of motor vehicle Act and policy conditions.  It is also contended that the complainant has no insurable interest.  The affidavit evidence of the power of attorney of complainant totally kept silent regarding this aspect, which is very relevant to be answered so as to establish the right of the complainant.  Complainant has no case that the death of the insured had been informed to insurance company.  The specific contention of that aspect also had not been answered by the affidavit evidence. 

          PW1 in his cross examination stated that “സംഭവ കാലത്ത് വാഹനത്തിന്റെ ഉടമ ആരാണെന്നു പറയാൻ കഴിയില്ല.”  He has also stated that “പോളിസിയിൽ പേര് ഉള്ളതിന്റെ  പിൻബലത്തിലാണ് claim ചെയ്തത്. Loosy Mathewന്റെ പേരിൽ policy issue ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല.”  He has added thus : “മരിച്ചു പോയ അച്ഛന്റെ ഒപ്പ് വരച്ചാണ് ഫയൽ ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്.”  The evidence goes to show that the applicant of the claim was not alive at the time of filing the claim.  Then arose the question why it was done so.  It is a clear admission that the right person entitled for the claim is none other the husband of the complainant.  The claim form was filed in the name of insured who was not alive.  It is pertinent to note that PW1 in his cross examination stated that “Mathew Ninan മരിച്ചു എന്നാ വിവരം ഇൻഷുറൻസ് കമ്പനിയെ രേഖാ മൂലം അറിയിച്ചിട്ടില്ല”.  In the light of this evidence complainant’s pleading that she had approached the Insurance Company in order to get the policy renewed in her name is not at all true.

          Complainant has no case that the claim was filed for an on behalf of legal heirs.  PW1 in cross examination made it clear that “Loosy Mathewവിനു  ഇപ്രകാരം കേസ് ഫയൽ ചെയ്യുവാൻ അവകാശികൾ രേഖാ മൂലം അധികാരപ്പെടുതിയിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്.” It shows claim is not filed by the legal heirs of insured. 

          In the light of the above explained facts and circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the complainant is miserably failed to establish her case.  Hence the issues No.1 to 3 are answered against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2013.

                            Sd/-                    Sd/-                Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Insurance policy.

A2.   Vehicle certificate cum policy schedule.

A3.   Vehicle repair bill

A4.   Insurance Renewal letter.

A5.   Renewed Insurance policy.

A6.   Vehicle certificate cum policy schedule.

A7.   Letter issued by OP dated 06.01.2010.

A8.   Legal Heir certificate.

A9.   Vehicle Repair bill.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Ranjan Mathew

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT