1. This is a petition filed by one Smti. Sabita Bora (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) against the M/S-The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Guwahati Branch and one another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other relief.
2. The fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The husband of the complainant, namely, deceased Jatin Bora purchased one private vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02/T 1549(Nissan Micra) for domestic purposes and duly insured the same with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, vide policy number OG-19-2405-1801-00005768 valid up to 27-06-2019 being a renewal package policy and the present complainant was made nominee for the said policy. The complainant stated that the policy holder Jatin Bora died unfortunately due to some illness on last 04-12-2017 while the date for renewal of the policy was fixed on 02-07-2018 and the complainant informed the broker/agent, namely, Dhanvi Motors, Khutikatia about the demise of her husband by furnishing Xerox copy of the death certificate. Further case of the complainant is that on last 21/10/2018 at 7:10 P.M., the abovementioned vehicle while driven by complainant’s son Udayashish Bora having a valid license met with an accident at Numaligarh Parghat under Kamargaon Police Station and thereafter, the police of Kamargaon Police Station made G.D. Entry vide GDE No.299 & 301 dated 21/10/2018 and due to the said accident, the said vehicle was damaged badly. Subsequently, the complainant intimated the concerned insurance company about the accident and being the nominee of the policy holder Jatin Bora placed her claim for Rs.5,68,355.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty eight Thousand three Hundred and fifty five)only along with all relevant documents for the damage of the vehicle before the opposite parties but the opposite parties repudiated all her claim vide letter dated 28-01-2019 and though the complainant send her reply regarding the said repudiation on 02-01-2019 & 10-01-2019 but no reply received from the opposite parties till date. The complainant submitted that the monthly E.M.I. for the damaged vehicle has been regularly deducted from her bank account and she being the nominee of the deceased policy holder entitled to get the insurance benefit against the said policy for the damaged vehicle but the opposite parties without having any sufficient cause and proper investigation repudiated all her claim for which she has to suffer financial hardship to run her family. Hence, this claim petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.
The opposite party No.1 to 2 filed their written version denying all the claim of the petitioner leveled against them. By their written version, the opposite party No.1 and 2 pleaded inter- alia that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the present petition and that the petition is unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed. The answering opposite parties submitted that the complainant has taken the policy from Dhanvi Motors, Khutikatia, Nagaon which is necessary parties in the case and as such, the petition of the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No.1 to 2 though admitted that the policy was issued to the deceased policy holder but also submitted that there are inherent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts and intentional false statement was made regarding the deceased policy holder in order to get the insurance coverage. The opposite party No.1 to 2 further stated that the policy holder Jatin Bora died on 04-12-2017 while the policy was issued in the name of said Jatin Bora on last 02-07-2018 and there was a suppression of material facts regarding the death of policy holder Jatin Bora and it was not informed to the insurer that the policy holder was not actually alive on the date of issuing the policy which was issued on good faith and thus, the insurance policy regarding the damaged vehicle was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The opposite party No.1 & 2 also stated that contract in the name of dead person is itself a nullity in the eye of law and at the time of issuing the insurance policy regarding the damaged vehicle, the fact that the policy holder Jatin Bora was not actually alive was suppressed intentionally and hence, the act of opposite parties in repudiation of the claim on the ground of non-disclosure of material fact does not amount to negligence or deficiency in service. The opposite party No.1 and 2 again submitted that the claim of the complainant is based on impermissible conjectures, inferences and surmise and she has no insurable interest in the policy of her deceased husband and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Under the above premises, the opposite party No.1 and 2 pray for dismissal of the complaint petition.
- Upon pleading of parties the following points are found for discussion and decision in the case.
- Whether the opposite party No.1 and 2 illegally denied to extend the benefit of the insurance policy No. OG-19-2405-1801-00005768 to the complainant for the theft vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02/T 1549(Nissan Micra) who was the nominee of the deceased policy holder- Jatin Borah for the said policy without any justified cause and such act on the part of opposite party No.1 to 2 amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the claimant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
4. The complainant filed evidence in affidavit of one witness and also exhibited several documents in support of her claim. The opposite party No.1 and 2 also examined one Nayan Choudhury as D.W.1. Both the witnesses were cross examined by their respective opponents.
5. Written argument filed by both the contesting parties and perused the same.
6. Decision and reasons thereof:-
7. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision:-
The claim of the complainant is that her husband- deceased Jatin Bora during his life time purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02/T 1549(Nissan Micra) and duly insured the same with the opposite parties and the Insurance policy was having a renewal package. The claimant further claimed that she was made nominee for the policy and after death of her husband, the said policy was renewed and when, unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen away by the miscreants, she claimed the benefit of the insurance policy of her husband but the opposite parties without any justified cause hold that at the time of issuing the policy, the policy holder was not alive and such material facts were withheld at the time of issuing the policy and thus, refused to provide her with the insurance benefit for the stolen vehicle. In support of her claim, she as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect her husband deceased Jatin Bora purchased a private vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02/T 1549(Nissan Micra) for domestic purposes and duly insured the same with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, vide policy number OG-19-2405-1801-00005768 valid up to 27-06-2019 and the policy having a renewal package, she was made nominee for the same. The complainant as P.W.1 also stated that the policy holder Jatin Bora died unfortunately due to some illness on last 04-12-2017 while the date for renewal of the policy was fixed on 02-07-2018 and the complainant informed the broker/agent, namely, Dhanvi Motors, Khutikatia about the demise of her husband by furnishing Xerox copy of the death certificate. This witness further deposed that on last 21/10/2018 at 7:10 P.M., the abovementioned vehicle while driven by her son Udayashish Bora having a valid license met with an accident at Numaligarh Parghat under Kamargaon Police Station and thereafter, the police of the Kamargaon Police Station made G.D. Entry vide GDE No.299 & 301 dated 21/10/2018 and due to the said accident, the said vehicle was damaged badly. Her further deposition is that she intimated the concerned insurance company about the accident and being the nominee for the abovementioned policy placed her claim for Rs.5,68,355.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Five)only before the opposite parties and also submitted all relevant documents regarding the damaged vehicle but the opposite parties repudiated all her claim vide letter dated 28-01-2019 and though this P.W. sent her reply regarding the said repudiation on 02-01-2019 & 10-01-2019 but no reply was received from the opposite parties till date. She deposed that the monthly E.M.I. for the damaged vehicle has been regularly deducted from her bank account and she being the nominee of the deceased policy holder entitled to get the insurance benefit against the said policy for the damaged vehicle but the opposite parties without any sufficient cause and proper investigation repudiated all her claim for which she has to suffer financial hardship to run her family and such acts, on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party No.1 and 2 by filing their written version submitted that the policy was obtained by fraud and at the time of renewal of the policy, the policy holder- Jiten Bora was not alive and such fact was suppressed intentionally before the insurer at the time of renewal of the policy. The Opposite parties pleaded that policy in the name of dead person is itself a nullity and as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this case. In support of their written version, the opposite parties examined one Nayan Choudhury as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, this witness deposed that the policy holder Jatin Bora died on last 04-12-2017 while the policy was issued in the name of said Jatin Bora on last 02-07-2018 and there was a suppression of material facts that the policy holder was not actually alive on the date of issuing the policy and such facts was not brought to the notice of the insurer and thus, the insurance policy regarding the damaged vehicle was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. He further deposed that the contract in the name of dead person is a nullity in the eye of law and at the time of issuing the insurance policy regarding the damaged vehicle, the fact that the policy holder Jatin Bora was not actually alive was suppressed intentionally and hence, the act of opposite parties in repudiation of the claim on the ground of non-disclosure of material fact does not amount to negligence or deficiency in service. This witness further deposed that the said insurance policy was not a renewal package policy and the insurance policy in the name of Jatin Bora was issued on 02-07-2018 in utmost good faith and as the policy holder was not actually alive on that date of issuing the policy, hence, the claimant has no insurable interest as claimed in the claim petition.
Thus, from the pleadings and evidence of both the contesting parties it is clear that the policy holder-Jatin Bora died on last 04-12-2017 while the date of issuing the policy was 02-07-2018. The claimant by her pleading and evidence claimed that the said insurance policy was a renewal package policy which is denied by the answering opposite party. However, the insurance policy was issued in the name of a dead person. The settled position of law is that insurance policy can not be issued in the name of a dead person since the insurance policy is nothing but a contract. Legally speaking, there cannot be contract with a dead person. The admitted position is that the policy holder Jatin Bora died on last 04-12-2017 and the complainant allegedly renewed the policy on last 02-07-2018 in the name of her deceased husband. That apart, there nothing to show that the complainant after the death of her husband who was the registered owner of the vehicle, took any step for getting the registration of the same transferred in her name nor she took any step to get earlier policy transferred in her own name. It is the duty of the legal heir of the deceased owner of a vehicle to take step for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in his own name. Similarly, the car insurance policy will also be transferred in that legal heir, if the policy is valid. In a scenario where there is a time gap between such transfer and the policy’s expiry date has been crossing, the legal heir can renew the policy in their name. The legal heir must inform the Insurance Company at the earliest about transferring the car insurance policy after death of the policy holder. If insurance was renewed in the name of a dead person, it is a nullity.
In view of above discussion we are firm to hold that the complainant has no insurable interest in the policy issued in the name of the deceased policy holder-Jatin Bora. Thus, the repudiation of the claim of the claimant by the opposite parties do not amount to deficiency in service on their part as the claimant has no insurable interest in the policy bearing No. OG-19-2405-1801-00005768 in connection with the damaged Vehicle.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in negative and go against the complainant.
O R D E R
8. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has failed to prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in the instant case.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest with cost.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 18th Day of January 2023.
