BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 144/2011 Filed on 02.05.2011

ORDER DATED: 14.07.2017

Complainant:

Anitha Sunil @ K.R. Anitha, W/o late Sunil Gangadharan, T.C 6/181, Tharavadu, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By Adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar)                

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059.

2. The Regional Claims Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., #4E, 4^th Floor, KG Oxford Business Centre, Sreekandath Road, Ravipuram, Kochi-682 016.

3. The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Retail Asset Division, 1^st Floor, Sudhas Building, Madhava Pharmacy Junction, Banerjee Road, Cochin-682 018.

4. The Manager (Branch), HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Capitol Centre, 2^nd Floor, 2E, M.G. Road, Opp: Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.

This C.C having been heard on 15.06.2017, the Forum on 14.07.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that she is the legal heir of late Sunil Gangadharan who was the owner of Volks Wagen Jetta car.  The car bearing reg. No. KL-01 AV 9909 was insured with the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties vide private car package policy No. 2311200 D1 8320400 000 and the policy is valid from 31.07.2010 to 30.07.2011.  The complainant had applied for legal heirship certificate and the same was received only by the end of December 2010.  In the meanwhile the aforesaid car met with an accident on 28.02.2011.  The complainant had immediately reported the accident to the 2^nd opposite party the regional office of 1^st opposite party insurance.  The estimate of repair for the car came to an amount of Rs. 17,93,247/- and the same was more than the price of a new car, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had proposed a total loss claim and the complainant had agreed to that.  The claim being the total loss the 4^th opposite party had directed the claim to their regional office i.e 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party vide letter dated 18.03.2011 sought for a clarification regarding the non-transfer of the insurance policy from the name of late Sunil Gangadharan to the complainant’s name.  The complainant clarified the fact and the 2^nd opposite party had sent a letter dated 29.03.2011 refusing to acknowledge or accept the aforesaid clarification and claim was closed.  The complainant received the legal heirship certificate only in the fog end of December 2010 and is necessary to change the ownership in the RC Book and then only the transfer of insurance policy could be effected.  The accident occurred after 1 ½ months of receipt of the legal heirship certificate.  The delay in transfer of ownership of the car or policy is only due to the reason of delay in receiving the legal heirship certificate and there isno intentional or willful omission.  The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 are bound to honour the insurance claim for the damages sustained to the car.  The act of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 to honour the claim along with compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant with 12% future interest and costs.

The opposite parties accepted notice and opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 filed version jointly and the 3^rd opposite party also filed version. 

Opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 stated in their version that these opposite parties admitted that the vehicle KL-01 AV 9909 was insured with these opposite parties in the name of Sunil Gangadharan, the late husband of complainant.  The claim submitted by the complainant is for the damages sustained to the vehicle due to an accident on 28.02.2011.  The loss was assessed through Sri. Vinod, an independent licensed surveyor.  He submitted a report assessing the loss for Rs. 8,01,836.08.  But due to violation of policy terms the claim was not paid and opposite party repudiated the claim.  The opposite parties informed the complainant about repudiation vide letter dated 29.03.2011.  The non-observance of a mandatory provision cannot be ignored by these opposite parties while settling a claim and are bound to follow the rules and regulations.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties and complainant is not eligible for any amount as per the alleged claim and these opposite parties are not liable.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed with costs.

The 3^rd opposite party filed version contending that this opposite party has extended a car loan with respect to the said vehicle in favour of the late Sunil Gangadharan and the said loan has been closed by the legal heirs by depositing the balance due in favour of this opposite party against the said loan account.  As a result, this opposite party is no way connected with the allegations raised in complaint.  There is no cause of action against this opposite party and also no relief is sought against this opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief against this opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed with compensatory cost to this opposite party. 

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 to P7.  The complainant was examined as PW1.  The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 filed affidavit in lieu of chief by their Manager and marked Exts. D1 to D3.  Opposite party manager was examined as DW1.  No oral evidence for 3^rd opposite party.    

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that Ext. P1 insurance policy valid from 31.07.2010 to 30.07.2011 was taken in the name of her deceased husband Sunil Gangadharan.  Ext. P2 is the death certificate of Sunil Gangadharan and Ext. P3 is the legal heirship certificate to show that the complainant is the legal heir of the deceased.  After the death of Sunil Gangadharan on 26.08.2010 his Volks Wagon Jetta car met with an accident on 28.02.2011.  The car was towed to the service centre with serious damages.  The complainant immediately reported the accident to the 2^nd opposite party.  As per Ext. P4 estimate the repair cost of the car amounts to Rs. 17,93,247/-.  On receiving claim 2^nd opposite party vide Ext. P5 letter dated 18.03.2011 sought for a clarification regarding the non-transfer of the insurance policy from the name of late Sunil Gangadharan to the name of complainant.  The complainant sent Ext. P6 letter stating the reason for delay in changing the name in the insurance policy.  The complainant stated that she gets the legal heirship certificate at the end of December 2010 and that only after changing ownership in the RC Book, the transfer of insurance policy could be effected.  But the 2^nd opposite party had sent Ext. P7 letter dated 29.03.2011 stating the inability to settle the claim and treat the same ‘closed as no claim’.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum for honouring her claim.  The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 stated that the loss assessed by an independent surveyor is only Rs. 8,01,836.08 as per Ext. D2.  The main contention raised by opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 is that there was violation of Sec. 3 of the policy terms and conditions and produced Ext. D1.  The opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 stated that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their side.  At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that her husband died before six months of accident and will get the insurance coverage only if the name in the RC Book and insurance are changed within 3 months.  Thus on going through evidence and statement we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4.  Therefore complaint is dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 14^th day of July 2017.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 144/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Anitha Sunil Gangadharan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of private car package policy

P2     - Copy of death certificate

P3     - Copy of certificate dated 10.12.2010 issued by Taluk Office, Tvpm.

P4     - Copy of estimate

P5     - Copy of letter dated 18.03.2011 issued by O.P

P6     - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 1^st O.P

P7     - Closing letter dated 29.03.2011

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - S. Sanjay Kumar

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

          D1     - Copy of private car package policy

          D2     - Copy of private & confidential motor final survey report

          D3     - Copy of closing letter dated 29.03.2011

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb