DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of December 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 02/07/2012
(C.C.No.117/2012)
1.V.L.Lalitha,
W/o.Late A Gourisankar,
Srilakshmi, House No.12/690,
College Road,
Palakkad – 678001
2.G.Ananthakrishnan,
S/o.Late A.Gourisankar,
House No.12/690, College Road,
Palakkad – 678 001
3.Subbalakshmi,
W/o.Satish Raghavan,
Srilakshmi, House No.12/690,
College Road, Palakkad – 678 001 - Complainants
(By Adv.K.Vijaya & A.K.Philip)
V/s
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Branch Office,
Surya Complex, Mission School Junction,
Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.L.Lakshminarayanan)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainants are the legal heirs of Sri.A.Gourisankar who died intestate on 15/8/2011. The 1st complainant is his wife and 2nd and 3rd complainants are their children. On 12/11/2010 Sri.A.Gourisankar had purchased a Tata Indigo Manza car bearing registration No.KL-09-Z-5894 and insured the vehicle with opposite party from 12/11/10 to 11/11/11. Late Sri.A.Gourisankar had availed a medi claim insurance as Mediguard Policy 101201/48/10/12/00003283. On his death the amount was claimed by the complainants and was paid by the opposite party. After the death of Sri.A.Gourisankar on 15/8/11, the complainants had applied for relationship certificate and legal heir ship certificate to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainants as legal heirs. Meanwhile the last date of insurance, the complainants contacted the opposite party through their agent Sri.Satheesh.K Nair enquiring about the renewal of insurance. On the advice of the opposite party the insurance was renewed from 12/11/11 to 11/11/12 in the name of late A.Goursankar and the opposite party issued insurance policy for the vehicle valid from 12/11/2011 to 11/11/2012.
The policy was issued on the basis of the premium paid by way of cheque drawn on the account of 2nd complainant which was accepted by the opposite party. All facts are known to the opposite party and their agent Sri.Satheesh K Nair. On 16/1/2012 the car met with an accident with an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-9-AC-229. There were no injuries to the persons in the vehicle. The vehicle was damaged at the right side, front bumper and front bonnet and also the right head light set was damaged besides the connected damages. The matter was taken up with the police and the incident was registered in the GD register. The accident was duly intimated to the opposite party. The complainant had to spend a sum of Rs.23,623/-to get the vehicle repaired.
Subsequently the complainant had forwarded the bills from CUVV Automobiles along with insurance papers to the opposite party claiming the cost of repairs by way of accident claim under the policy. The opposite party has rejected the claim by their letter dated 13/2/12 for the reason that the policy had not been transferred to the legal heir at the time of accident. The repudiation of the claim is without any valid reason.
The opposite party who had issued the policy in the name of the deceased is estopped from contending that there is no insurable interest. As per law immediately on the death of the RC owner the legal heirs become the owners by succession and the name of the deceased shown in the RC book and the policy will not deter the ownership of the legal heirs who succeed immediately and the insurable interest will also succeed on the legal heirs by succession. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainants pray an order directing the opposite party to
1. Pay Rs.23,623/- as cost for repairing the vehicle
2. Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss
3. Pay cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The contention of the complainants that as per the advice of the opposite party the policy was renewed in the name of Sri.A.Gourisankar is false and hence denied. It is admitted that Gourisankar was the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL-09-Z-5894 and the Bombay branch of the company has issued an insurance coverage for the vehicle. Also admitted that Gourisankar was having a mediguard insurance policy and the amount under the policy was settled by the company. Insurance is a contract and contract cannot be made with a deceased person. As per the policy the vehicle has to be transferred in the name of the legal heirs within 90 days from the date of death. In the present case Sri.Gourisankar died on 15/8/11 and the complainants had not informed to the company. The company is insuring thousands of vehicle in an year and it is not possible to remember the name or address of the persons. The opposite party stated that medi claim policy and motor insurance policy are dealt by different departments.
When the registered owner died there was valid insurance cover and even as per the document it is seen that it is valid for more than 3 months. The transfer of ownership under succession automatically will not entitle the complainants to the benefits of the contract of insurance. In the present case even the death of the registered owner was not intimated and no steps were taken to transfer the policy within time. Further the policy was renewed in the name of a deceased person and it is abinitio void.
It is admitted that the complainants had forwarded a claim under own damage claim and the same was scrutinized by the company. But on verification of records it is found that the policy is seen obtained in the name of the deceased person and the policy has not been changed. Since there is clear violation of the policy condition the company has no option but to repudiate the claim. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed that complaint dismissed with costs.
Both parties filed their affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A10 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter heard and notes filed by both parties.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly Gourisankar was the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL-09-Z-5894 and the company has issued an insurance coverage for the vehicle. The main allegation of opposite party is that Sri.Gourisankar died on 15/8/11 and the complainants had not informed about to the company. As per clause 9 of the insurance policy if the insured is died the policy will remain in force for 90 days and within that time the policy has to be changed in the name of the legal heir. According to the complainants, they had applied for relationship certificate and legal heirship certificate to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainants as they are the legal heirs. Meanwhile the last date of insurance, the complainants contacted the opposite party through their agent Sri.Satheesh K Nair enquiring about the renewal of insurance and on the advice of them the insurance was renewed from 12/11/11 to 11/11/12 in the name of late Gourisankar. Then the opposite party issued insurance policy 1012013111P001361673 for the vehicle. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.
The complainants stated that the insurance was renewed on the advice of the opposite party for the following reasons.
i. To change the Registration Certificate into the names of the complainants a valid insurance is required.
ii. The opposite party was aware of the death of Sri.A.Gourisankar as they had already settled the claim under Mediguard policy No.101201/48/10/12/00003283.
iii. As the legal heirs the complainants will immediately become owners by succession and the change of name in the Registration Certificate and policy are only formalities.
iv. For changing the Registration Certificate, legal heirship certificate is required.
No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. In Ext.A7 the copy of legal heirship certificate dated 4/8/12 shows that complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Gourisankar. Ext.A8 is the copy of R.C.shows that registered owner of the vehicle is 2nd complainant. Opposite party admitted that Sri.Gourisankar was having a mediguard insurance policy and the amount under the mediclaim policy was settled by the company. According to the complainant the opposite party was aware of the death of Gourisankar as they had already settled the claim under mediguard policy.
As per the policy the vehicle has to be transferred in the name of the legal heirs within 90 days from the date of death. In Ext.A1 the period of insurance from 12/11/11 to 11/11/12. On 15/8/2011 Sri.Gourisankar died. So the policy was renewed in the name of late Gourisankar within 90 days from the date of death. In Ext.B1 the name and address of the R.C. owner was Mr.Gowrisankar. Complainants argued that the signature in Ext.B1 was of 2nd complainant. No objection was raised by the opposite party. In Ext.B2 the claim form submitted by 1st complainant, wife of late Gourisankar. As per Ext.A9 the copy of G.O. Entry Certificate shows that the date of accident was happened after 5 months from the death of Gourisankar. Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 shows that the acts of complainants was not fraud and misrepresentation.
According to the complainants on the advice of the agent Sri.Satheesh K Nair renewed the policy in the name of late Gourisankar. But the opposite party has not examined him as a witness. In Ext.A7, complainants are the legal heirs of late Gourisankar. According to the opposite party policy obtained in the name of deceased person is clear violation of the policy conditions. But the opposite party had renewed the policy in the name of the deceased person with verifying the records. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they had no information about the death of Sri.Gourisankar. Moreover the complainants stated that in Ext.B1 the owner name is Gourisankar and the signature is 2nd complainant. In short the opposite party renewed the policy from 12/11/11 to 11/11/12 in the name of deceased Gourisankar.
The Hon’ble Appex Court held that if there is any violation of policy condition claim amount can be given on non standard basis. In Ext.B3 the Surveyor assessed the net loss Rs.17948.7/- round off Rs.17,948/-.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant 75% of the surveyor assessed amount. i.e. 75% of Rs.17,948/- is Rs.13,461/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred and sixty one only) and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of December 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Insurance Policy
Ext.A2 – Bill dtd.1/2/12 of CUVV Automobiles
Ext.A3 – Bill dtd.3/2/12 of CUVV Automobiles
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of Death Certificate
Ext.A5 – Mediguard Insurance Policy (original)
Ext.A6 – Lettter dated 13/2/12 sent by the opposite party to the complainants
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Legal heirship certificate
Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Certificate of Registration of KL-09-Z-5894
Ext.A9 – Photocopy of GD entry certificate of SI Police Traffic, Palakkad
Ext.A10 – Letter regarding the accident by Mr.Ibrahim, Palakkad to the
complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Proposal Form submitted by the complainant
Ext.B2 – Claim form submitted by the complainant
Ext.B3 – Xerox copy of the Survery Report
Ext.B4 – True copy of the Insurance Policy
Cost
Rs.1000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
