Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/107

Chhunu Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Dealer Sales Service Laxmi Narayan Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Mishra

17 May 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-25-08-2018

Date of final hearing-17-05-2023

 Date of Order-17-05-2023

Case No. 107/2018

Chhunu Devi @ Sonu Devi W/o Pashupati Mahto

 R/o Village and P.O. Gangjori, P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro Jharkhand

                                      Vrs.

  1. The Dealer Sales-Service Laxmi Narayan Honda

At Jainamore (Ramgarh Road) Bokaro Jharkhand, 829301

  1. The Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
  2.  
  3. HDFC Bank,

City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro, Jharkhand

 

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

  1. Complainant’s case in brief is that her son Ashok Kumar purchased a Honda SP Shine Motor cycle from the dealer Laxmi Narayan Honda on 03.12.2017 which was hypothecated with HDFC Bank. Further case is that after full satisfaction related to payment of the price of the motorcycle, insurance, body insurance O.P. No.1 handed over the motorcycle to the son of the  complainant Ashok Kumar who put signatures on all papers and tax invoice was issued on 05.12.2017 but body insurance was not issued inspite of repeated reminders. Later on said Ashok kumar died on 03.01.2018 due to road accident for which Jaridih P.S. Case No. 09/2018 U/s 279, 337,338, 304 A IPC has been registered. Further case is that after accidental death of deceased Ashok Kumar O.P. No.2 issued body insurance policy on 10.01.2018 inspite of performance of all formalities earlier. Inspite of repeated requests claim amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has not been paid by the insurance co. HDFC ERGO SARV SURAKSHA hence there is deficiency on the part of O.Ps. Thereafter legal notice was served on O.Ps. having no impact hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- with 12% interest on account of accidental death, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.
  2. O.P. No.1, the dealer of the Vehicle has filed W.S. mentioning therein that there is suppression of materials facts and case has been filed with malafied intention to harass this O.P. and complaint as filed is not a complaint as per law. There is no allegation against this O.P. regarding any type of deficiency in service. So far payment related to insurance policy is concerned this O.P. is having no concern about it rather he has delivered the vehicle on the order of bank after approval of loan. Further reply is that for the act of the insurance co. this O.P. cannot be held liable. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case against this O.P.
  3. O.P. No.2 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed W.S. mentioning therein that just after receipt of the premium on 09.01.2018 this O.P. has issued insurance policy valid from 10.01.2018 to 09.01.2020 but prior to it insured Ashok Kumar died on 03.01.2018 hence insurance co. is not liable for payment of the claim to the complainant.
  4. During pendency of the case at the stage of argument complainant has added HDFC Bank as O.P. No.3 hence said O.P. No.3 has filed W.S. mentioning there in that as per complaint petition the son of complainant purchased the vehicle on 03.12.2017 and hypothecated it with the Bank on full payment but tax invoice shows that it was issued on 05.12.2017 and there is no specific allegation against this O.P. by the complainant. Further reply is that the deceased son of the complainant approached the bank on 04.12.2017 and after performing all formalities loan was disbursed on 09.01.2018 in this way there is no deficiency by this O.P. Further reply is that as soon as loan was approved and after its sanction amount has been remitted to the insurance co. but it appears that prior to approval of the loan agency has delivered the vehicle concerned to the son of the complainant which act itself is against the norms. Further reply is that there is no deficiency on the part of this O.P. hence case is liable to be dismissed.
  5. Point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
  6. So far the liability of insurance co. is concerned it is very much clear that insurance policy is effective from 10.01.2018 to 09.01.2020  (Annxure-1) and it is admitted fact that insured died on 03.01.2018 prior to issuance of insurance policy and policy was not effective on that very date.
  7. So far O.P. No.3 is concerned it is very much clear from delivery challan of the vehicle concerned that vehicle was delivered to the Ashok Kumar on 03.12.2017 on which date said Ashok Kumar has not applied for grant of vehicle loan, rather after receipt of the vehicle on 03.12.2017  from the dealer said Ashok Kumar has applied for two wheeler loan on 04.12.2017 as it is apparent from photo copy of the loan application of the Ashok Kumar. The statement of the account shows that loan was disbursed on 09.01.2018 by the Bank.
  8. It is admitted fact that deceased died on 03.01.2018 due to motor vehicular accident (Annxure-5,6) of the complaint petition. Therefore it was duty of the complainant to inform about the death of her son to all concerned including the bank but she has not informed it. Annexure-1 is the photo copy of insurance policy which was issued on 10.01.2018 after death of the Ashok Kumar (Insured). Therefore, it is very much clear that insurance policy was void-ab-initio and it was issued in respect to dead person, hence as per law it is required to be ignored by anyone. Since policy concerned itself was not effective hence on the basis of that very policy no claim can be entertained. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant is not able to prove her case for grant of relief as prayed.
  9. Accordingly this case is dismissed on contest.

                                                                                                                                                                                                               S/d

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                       

             S/d           

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.