DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 20/11/2019
CC/279/2019
Baiji Denny,
W/o.Late Denny Sebastian,
Edassery House,
Karimba PO.,
Pudukkad, Mannarkkad - Complainant
(By Adv.B.Ravikumar)
Vs
1.The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office, 2nd Floor,
JRJ Complex, Main Road,
Ottapalam – 679 101
Rep.by its Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Cherpulassery Micro Office,
1st Floor, Keezhzadiyil Complex,
Near LIC Office, Ottapalam Road,
Cherpulassery, Palakkad – 679 503
Rep.by its Manager
3. Muthoot Vehilce & Asset Finance Ltd.,
1st Floor, AV Plaza, RS Road,
Palakkad. - Opposite Parties
(OPs 1 & 2 by Adv.T.P.George)
(3rd OP by Adv.P.M.Ramesan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complainant is the widow of one Denny Sebastian who died on 28/8/2016. The vehicle bearing No.KL52D-7433 was owned by the aforesaid deceased Denny Sebastian. On 20/10/2018 the vehicle met with an accident and had to be repaired expending huge amounts. At the time of accident, the vehicle was having a valid and subsisting policy in the name the RC owner of the vehicle, deceased Denny Sebastian.
Since the vehicle was under hire purchase agreement, the RC could not be transferred in the name of the complainant or other legal heirs of the deceased without the sanction of third opposite party. All payments pertaining to the vehicle and change of ownership are to be done by the 3rd opposite party. The insurance policy was being taken by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant was under bonafide impression that the 3rd opposite party would have changed the ownership of the vehicle. As the 3rd opposite party failed to intimate the insurance company, they repudiated the complainant’s claim for the amounts expended for repair of the vehicle.
This complaint is filed seeking an amount of Rs.2,24,782/- being the amount expended for repairing the vehicle with 12% interest and for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
- Upon entering appearance the opposite parties filed their respective versions.
2(a) The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed joint version stating their inability to honour the claim of the complainant since they had no notice regarding the death of the RC owner of the vehicle and the subsisting policy was in the name of a person who had died two years ago. Policy, being in the name of a dead person, is void. On this ground they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
2(b) The 3rd opposite party filed version contending that they had no notice regarding the death of the RC owner. They also came to know of the death of the RC owner when the hire purchase amounts had become due and the case for settlement of accounts was settled between the parties in the adalath. Even though this opposite party had remitted one premium, the payment was effected not upon coming to know of death of original owner but, as per request of the complainant.
- On a reading of the pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration.
- Whether, there existed a valid and subsisting policy as on the date of accident ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for ?
- Reliefs, if any ?
4. Evidence on the part of the complainant consisted of proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6. Evidence on the part of OP1 & 2 consisted of proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B6. OP3 also filed proof affidavit, but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Exts.A5 & 6 were objected to on the ground that Ext.A5 can be marked only through the person who prepared it and Ext.A6 was objected to on the ground that it was only an estimate. Since Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 are valuations, the accuracy of the amounts contained therein can be ascertained only by way of examining the person who prepared it. But for any other purposes we do not find any impediment in taking recourse to Ext.A5 & A6.
Issue No.1
5. Ext.A1 is the policy document issued by the insurance company in favour of the deceased RC owner, Denny Sebastian. At the time of issuance of Ext. A1, Denny Sebastian had been dead for nearly two years. Since an agreement with a non-existent person is a nullity, Ext.A1 is not a valid policy. Hence, there did not exist a valid and subsisting policy binding the opposite parties 1 & 2. The opposite parties 1 & 2 were perfectly within their right in repudiating the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.
Issue No.2
- Section 50 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act not withstanding, complainant has raised a contention that the opposite party no.3 being the financier, they ought to have informed the Insurance Company regarding the change of ownership arising out of death of Denny Sebastian. The 3rd opposite party has contested this claim stating that they were not aware of the death of Denny Sebastian. They averred that they came to know of the death of the original RC owner only when they came into contact with the complainant for settling the dues that were due to the OP3. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that she had informed the 3rd opposite party of the death of Denny Sebastian.
7. Even though the pleadings and proof affidavit of the opposite party 3 does not disclose the date when the case was settled and they came to know of the death of the original RC owner, Ext.A5 shed a light on this aspect. Ext.A5 is the private and confidential Motor Final Report dated 18/5/2019 prepared at the behest of the 1st opposite party. The item II shows the vehicle was under HPA with OP3. Ext.A1 policy was issued on 27/6/2018. Hence, from available evidence, and for want of better evidence from either sides, we presume that the vehicle was under hypothecation on the date of accident. Hypothecation was lifted later after settling the dues in the adalath. The opposite party No.3 came to know of the death of original RC owner only during the settlement. Hence, it is clear that at the time of accident the opposite party No.3 had no knowledge of death of the original RC owner.
8. Hence, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.
Issue Nos.3 & 4
9. As a result of the discussions supra, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. This being a case wherein a widow is trying desperately for a claim arising out of an insurance policy, however irrecoverable, the amount be, we are taking a lenient view and no cost is being imposed on the complainant. The parties are therefore directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 -Original of Policy bearing no.76270431180100001085 dt.27/6/18
Ext.A2 – Original of Registration Certificate bearing Vehicle No.KL52D7433
Ext.A3 – Original letter dated 7/6/2019 bearing ref No.NIA/OTP/ODCMS/2019-20
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of death certificate dated 7/9/16
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Private and Confidential Motor Final Report dt.18/5/19
Ext.A6 – Photocopy of estimate dated 6/2/2019 issued by VN Motors.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 - True copy of Ext.A1
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Ext.A4
Ext.B3 – Original of Motor Claim Form
Ext.B4 – True copy of Ext.A3
Ext.B5 – Original of Communication issued by complainant to DM, New India Assurance
Ext.B6 – Photocopy of Ext.A2
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : No cost allowed.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.