CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/175/2017
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Mohd. Saleem
S/o Late Sh. Bundu Khan,
R/o E-3/366, Nand Nagri,
Dekhi-110093. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager
Office at 1001, L.G.F., Naiwala,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma
Mr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Mohd. Saleem (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that the deceased son of the complainant was the owner of a motor cycle bearing no. DL-7S-BR-9728 which was insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short OP) vide policy no. 101026/31/17/022092 which was valid from 22.01.2017 to 21.01.2018. The vehicle was stolen on 02.04.2017 and the FIR was reported in police station Nand Nagri vide FIR No. 202/2016. The complainant was the nominee under the said policy and wife of the deceased also gave an affidavit-cum no objection to the complainant to get the claim of the policy in respect of the vehicle in question. OP has repudiated the claim without any justification. Hence instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant the policy amount of the said vehicle, Rs. 65,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement. It is submitted by OP that the complainant is neither the insurance policy owner nor the registration certificate is in favour of the complainant. It is further stated that son of the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle who expired on 17.05.2016. Neither the insurance policy nor registration certificate was got transferred by the legal heirs after his death. OP is therefore justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
3. Both sides adduced evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard Sh. L.G. Das, counsel for complainant.
4. OP has referred to its investigation report dated 20.04.2017 to the effect that 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 the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. It is further submitted that condition 8 of the terms and conditions of the policy has to be complied with for claiming any payment under the policy.
5. Reliance is placed by the complainant on certain judgments mentioned in Para 3 of his rejoinder in support of his plea that if copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not supplied to the insured at the time of issuing the cover note and terms are not explained then those terms and conditions are not binding upon the insured and insurance company cannot repudiate any claim on the ground of exclusion clause.
Complainant is a stranger to OP as he is neither the policy holder not the registered owner of the vehicle so OP was not bound to give a copy of the insurance terms and conditions to the complainant. No written representation of the deceased is placed on record which may indicate that he was not provided with a copy of terms and conditions of the policy. It is not in dispute that insurance policy was in the name of the deceased son of the complainant and was valid from 22.01.2017 to 21.01.2018. Theft took place on 02.04.2017 and the insured had already died on 17.05.2016 which means that the insured was already dead when the policy in question was taken by his LRs in his name. The fact that insured was no more was not brought to the notice of the insurer. Further even after issuance of the policy, the LRs did not bring it to the notice of the insurer that policy was issued in the name of the person who was no more. The policy continued in his name even on the date of theft of the vehicle i.e. 02.04.2017 which is 11 months after the death.
6. It is relevant to refer to the judgments of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Chandigarh) titled as Kapil Attri Vs Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co. First Appeal no. 345 of 2009 dated 05.10.2012. Fact of the case were that complainant’s mother was the owner of the car bearing no. PB-65-D-1818 which was insured with OP1 for the period 01.09.2006 to 31.08.2007. The said insurance was renewed for the period from 31.08.2007 to 30.08.2008 and the IDV of the car was Rs. 3,60,000/-. His car met with an accident on 26.03.2008 regarding which information was given to the OP who appointed a surveyor. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,58,402.74 but the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that after the death of Krishna Kumari on 22.12.2006, the car was not got transferred by the complainant in his favour and, therefore, he had no insurable interest in the vehicle. The complainant, therefore, filed complaint for payment of Rs. 3,60,000/- with Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment. OP1 admitted the insurance but contended that Krishna Kumari had died on 22.12.2006 which fact was not disclosed by the complainant and on 06.08.2007, without getting the vehicle transferred in his favour, he obtained fresh insurance in favour of Krishna Kumari. It was held that:
“ There was no contract of insurance with the complainant under which the OPs can be compelled to pay compensation to the complainant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the OPs have
rightly repudiated the claim and the complaint was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.
8. In this respect, we may refer to the cases "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri Divya Prashad, I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC)" and "Oriental Insurance Company v. Kamal Tours & Travels III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC)" in which cases it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that if the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the accident, there was no privity of contract between the insurance company and the complainant is not entitled to compensation.”
7. The renewal of the policy being in the name of dead person is void. The judgment in the case of Kapil Attri (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. There is a judgment to the same effect by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in Nirasha Sinha Vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. in Revision Petition no. 3337 of 2016 against appeal no. 157/2016 dated 18.10.2017. The facts in Nirasha Sinha case were that late Ravi Sharma husband of the complainant owned a car which was insured with OP company. The policy was to expire on 25.10.2011. In the meanwhile insured died on 02.10.2011. The case of the complainant was that she requested the insurer to transfer the policy in her name. Thereafter fresh policy effective from 25.10.2011 was issued by the insurer in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant which was valid on 25.10.2012. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 06.01.2013. Claim lodged by the complainant for reimbursement of the loss was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the policy was in the name of the dead person. District Forum dismissed the complaint. Appeal was also dismissed. Hence the Revision Petition before the National Commission. National Commission observed that:
“5. Admittedly, the policy in force at the time of death of the husband of the complainant expired on 25.10.2011. Admittedly, thereafter another policy was issued by the insurer for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 in the name of the deceased. On expiry of that policy, there was a break of 6 days and then a policy for the period from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013, again in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant was issued. Had the complainant already requested the insurer on 15.10.2011 to transfer the policy in her name, she would not have accepted the insurance policy issued in the name of her deceased husband for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 and would have returned the said policy to the insurer with a request to change the name of the insured in the said policy. That having not been done, the obvious inference is that no request on 15.10.2011 for transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant was made to the insurer.
6. Even after the policy for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 had expired and then a policy effective from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 was issued, the complainant did not protest on account of the said policy being issued in the name of her deceased husband and did not ask for amendment of the policy by changing the name of the insured from the name of her deceased husband to her name. This is yet another indicator that the complainant did not intimate the death of her husband to the insurer and did not seek issuance of the policy in her name.
7. It thus stand proved that insurance policy for two terms - firstly from 26.11.2011 to 25.10.2012 and then from 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 were obtained in the name of a dead person. The contract in the name of a dead person being a nullity in the eye of law, the insurer is not bound to make any payment to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by her due to accident of the inured vehicle.”
8. The facts of the case in Nirasha Sinha (supra) are similar to the facts of the instant case. Therefore it is to be held that contract in the name of the deceased is void and not enforceable. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this Day of 2019.
