Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 337.
Instituted on : 31.05.2012.
Decided on : 21.05.2015.
- Smt. Rajbala w/o Late Sh. Mangal.
- Satish s/o Late Mangal
- Sunil s/o late Mangal
All residents of H.No.1218, V.P.O.-Mokhra, Teh. –Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Opp. Situated at HDFC Bank Building, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 135-136, Sector-94, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vedpal Khasa, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainants with the averments that husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant no.2 & 3 namely Sh. Mangal was registered owner of a truck bearing registration No.H46C-4416 which was insured from the opposite parties vide policy no.1501702334002333. It is averred that the registered owner of the vehicle had expired and after his death the complainants being his wife and sons inherited all moveable and immoveable property in equal share. It is averred that on 28.04.2011 complainant no.2 alongwith his driver Manish was going from Rohtak to Rajkot after loading paint in the truck and the alleged vehicle met with an accident with a standing vehicle and was badly damaged. A D.D. No.8 dated 29.04.2011 was lodged in P.P.Mahavir Chowk, Narnaul. After the accident the complainant duly informed the officials of opposite party on time and the vehicle of complainants was got surveyed by the surveyor of opposite party and thereafter an amount of Rs.200000/- was spent on the repair of vehicle. It is averred that the complainants furnished all the required documents as asked by the officials of opposite party and applied for the insurance claim amount vide claim no.2111072129. But the opposite parties vide their letter dated 17.05.2011 had repudiated the claim of the complainant by making false ground that the company has not been informed by the complainants after the death of Sh. Mangal. It is averred that the complainants have no knowledge & information about transferring the insurance in their name. It is averred that complainants requested the opposite parties to settle the claim and also served a legal notice to the opposite party no.2 but the claim has not been paid to the complainants. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is averred that opposite parties may please be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.200000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that after the death of Sh. Mangal, all the legal heirs of Sh. Mangal are entitled to the property left by the deceased. It is averred that the present complaint has been filed by the widow of Sh. Mangal and his sons, but other legal representatives have not been made a party to the complaint. Moreover the complainant be directed to bring succession certificate. It is averred that that the answering opposite party appointed the surveyor who submitted his report showing the liability to the tune of Rs.71000/- after deduction but the same was not paid to the complainant because Mr. Mangal registered owner of the vehicle died on 20.10.2010 whereas the policy in question was issued on 12.08.2010 valid upto 11.08.2010. It is averred that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in the event to death of the insured, the policy in question does not lapse immediately but will remain valid for the period of 3 months from the date of death of the insured or until expiry of the policy, whichever is earlier and during the said period all the legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes should get the vehicle transferred in their name. But the same was not done by the present complainant. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the party of the opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C41 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed its evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.71000/- but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.R7 on the ground that : “That as per policy condition No.9, in the event to death of the insured, the policy in question does not lapse immediately but will remain valid for the period of 3 months from the date of death of the insured or until expiry of the policy, (whichever is earlier) during the said period all the legal heirs of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes should get the vehicle transferred in their name or obtain a new issuance for the motor vehicle. But in this case the contract executed in the name of Mr. Mangal is void ab-initio as they cannot obtain a contract in the name of dead person”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the policy was issued for the period 12.08.2010 to 11.08.2011 and the accident had taken place on 28.04.2011 i.e. within the period of insurance but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the registered owner of the vehicle Sh. Mangal had expired and that the policy was not got transferred by the legal heirs in their name. In this regard ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the law cited in 2010(1)Law Herald(Acc.)37(SC) titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santro Devi whereby it is held that: “Accident-Owner of vehicle already dead-Vehicle not transferred in the name of his heirs-Insurance renewed in the name of deceased owner-Accident took place and driver died-No witness examined by insurance company that they were not aware about death of original owner-Compensation rightly granted to wife of deceased driver” It is further held that: “It cannot be said that contract itself is void unless it was shown that in obtaining the said contract a fraud had been practiced-Not only particulars of fraud had not been pleaded but even no witness was examined by the company-Commissioner below rightly awarded compensation in favour of respondent” and as per 2012(1)Law Herald(Acc.) 543 titled as Smt. Tulasi Sahukar Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has held that: “In case of death of the insured, transferee in possession has to be deemed to have been covered by the policy-The insurer cannot in registration certificate-held, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount with interest and cost as awarded to the claimants”. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that: the complainant be directed to bring succession certificate. In this regard Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 2009(4)ACC384 titled as Aktharbibi Abdul Razak Gulam Rasul & Ors. Vs. UIIC has held that: “Tribunal not justified in directing legal heirs of original claimant to produce succession certificate for withdrawal of amount of compensation in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakhsana Vs. Nazrunnisa, 2000AIR SCW494 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “The succession certificate as envisaged under the Indian Succession Act was only granted in respect of ‘debts’ or ‘securities’ to which the deceased was entitled and the compensation awarded under the M.V.Act was neither a debt nor a succession(sic.security). Therefore, no certificate was required to be obtained in order to claim the compensation awarded under the M.V.Act”. It is also observed that as per copy of R.C. Ex.C4 the same was got transferred in the name of Satish s/o Sh. Mangal. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance claim as assessed by the surveyor to the complainants.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, opposite parties are directed to make payment of Rs.71000/-(Rupees seventy one thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.31.05.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainants maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
