Delhi

North

CC/2/2024

JATINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- 1 (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe-II Building,Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi-110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 2/2024

In the matter of

Jatinder Kaur

W/o Late Shri Mahender Singh

R/o A-8, Pratap Nagar,

Delhi-110007                                                ...       Complainant

versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regd. add. at:

1/28, 4th floor,

Sunlight Insurance Building,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002          ...       Opposite Party

 

ORDER

23.01.2024

 

Present:       Mr Sarabjot Singh, Ld. Advocate on behalf of Ms Sangeeta Vazirani, Ld. Advocate for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has challenged the repudiation of motor vehicle theft claim repudiation by M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Opposite Party herein) vide its letter dated 28.07.2023. We have heard the arguments on admissibility on last date of hearing and have reserved the order.
2. Briefly stated, the vehicle in question, a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) bearing registration number HR38AC1203 was registered in the name of Shri Mahender Singh with Regional Transfer Officer (RTO), Faridabad. The said vehicle was insured by the OP which was valid from 26.07.2022 to 25.07.2023. On 07.11.2022, the owner of the vehicle namely Shri Mahender Singh expired. Subsequently, the said vehicle was stolen on 19.03.2023. Admittedly, the ownership of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased owner and the said vehicle still remains in the name of the Late Shri Mahender Singh in the records of the RTO.
3. Upon knowledge of the theft of the vehicle, first information report (FIR) was lodged with e-Police Station, Gulabibagh, Delhi with FIR No. 8453 dated 19.03.2023 by one Shri Mandeep Singh stated to be son of Late Shri Mahender Singh. Accordingly, a theft claim for the loss of the said vehicle in question was also lodged with OP by Shri Mandeep Singh on 20.03.2023. It is also to be noted that Shri Mandeep Singh is not a party before us.
4. At this stage, we would like to record that this complaint has been filed by Mrs Jatinder Kaur, W/o Late Shri Mahender Singh. The vehicle and the insurance in question were in name of the Late Shri Mahender Singh. Thiscomplaint should have been filed on behalf of the legal heirs of Late Shri Mahender Singh, but except for his surviving wife, no other legal heirs are arrayed as party. The correspondences with the OP were made by one Shri Mandeep Singh, who is son of the Complainant and Late Shri Mahender Singh. So as per records as available with this Commission, there are at least two legal heirs, but not all legal heirs are party to this complaint. Alternatively, no-objection could have been obtained from the remaining legal heirs by the Complainant before filing this complaint, but the same is also not available on record. Hence, it is not known to us that whether the Complainant has been authorised by other legal heirs for filing this complaint and also to solely claim the prayer, if granted. In our opinion, other legal heirs are necessary party. At least the authorisation from other legal heirs should have been filed. In absence of the same, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, this compliant is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits of the case, after examining the claim filed by Shri Mandeep Singh, vide its letter dated 18.07.2023, OP has informed the Shri Mandeep Singh that as the ownership of the vehicle and the insurance policy were not transferred in the name of the legal heirs of the registered owner within a period of three months from the date of death of the registered owner/ insured, which is violation of policy terms and conditions, there is no insurable interest in favour of Shri Mandeep Singh. Accordingly, Shri Mandeep Singh was called upon to substantiate the claim on the proposed ground of repudiation.
6. In reply to the said letter, Shri Mandeep Singh, vide his letter dated 23.07.2023 informed the OP that he is not staying in India and his mother (w/o Late Shri Mahender Singh), who is the Complainant herein could not complete the formalities in view of shock due to death of her husband. The legal formalities of obtaining requisite documents of succession were also not completed in view of her poor health as well as for the reason that no children are living with her.
7. After considering the reply dated 23.07.2023, the OP has repudiated the claim as “not tenable” in view of the violation of clause 10 of the policy terms and conditions, which provides that in view of the death of the insured, the policy must be transferred within a period of three months in the name of legal heir for ensuring continuity of the policy. The policy stands lapsed three months after the death of the insured, if not transferred in the name of legal heirs. The said repudiation is under challenge before this Commission.
8. In the complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the policy terms and conditions were never supplied or communicated to the Complainant or the deceased insured were not aware about any of the requirements of transferring the policy in the event of the death of the insured. In support of her arguments, Ms Sangeeta Vazirani, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Kalsi v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2022) 6 SCC 394] in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“14. … Consequently, unless the respondents were able to establish on a cogent basis that the special conditions of the policy which was issued by the first respondent to the second respondent were drawn to the notice of the account holder for whose benefit the insurance cover extended, the claim ought not to have been rejected.”

9.  The said argument cannot be accepted as the OP Insurance Company upon knowledge of death of the insured by way of the claim lodged by Shri Mandeep Singh, has communicated, vide its letter dated 18.07.2023 about the legal requirement of the transfer of policy and existence of the relevant policy terms and conditions. Therefore, even relying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anju Kalsi (supra) case, as the OP Insurance Company has communicated about existence of policy terms and conditions prior to repudiating the claim, the rejection of claim cannot be faulted.
10. Even otherwise, the law is very clear. After the death of the motor vehicle policy insured, the policy and the ownership of the vehicle must to be transferred within a stipulated time. Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 mandates that after the death of the registered owner of the vehicle, person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle can use the vehicle for a period of three months without transfer and apply for transfer of ownership in his/ her name within 30 days from the date of death of owner of vehicle. Further, the Indian Motor Tariff (IMT) issued by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India clearly provides that in the event of the death of the sole insured, the motor insurance policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the Motor Vehicle passes may apply to have this Policy transferred to the name(s) of the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle. General Regulation 17 (GR.17) of the IMT also provides that the benefit of the own damage of the policy holder shall be made available to the transferee only after the package polices are transferred in the name of the new owner.
11. The ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for the mistakes of the Complainant. In the case in hand, even if we accept the argument of the Complainant that the specific terms and conditions were not communicated by the OP, the ignorance of law and legal provisions cannot be accepted.
12. Once the policy is not transferred within the stipulated time after the death of the original insured, the policy ceases to exist after the lapse of the stipulated three months period. In such an event, in absence of any insurable interest with respect to the legal heirs of the insured, the OP insurance company is not liable to honour any claim for own loss. In this context, would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Competent Insulations vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(1996) 1 SCC 221], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“10. … Thus, the entire Chapter XI of the new Act concerns third-party risks only. It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third-party risks since Section 146 prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third-party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the new Act must be limited thereto. … If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act [Motor Vehicle Act, 1988] and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct. (underlining by us).

13. This view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2020) 11 SCC 745], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“17. This Court dealt with the provisions of Chapter XI and explained that it concerns only third-party risks and as a result, the fiction contained in Section 157 must be limited for that purpose. The above extract emphasises that if the policy covers other risks that would be a matter which falls outside Chapter XI and would rest in the domain of contract for which there has to be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee. In that case the Court held that there was no such agreement since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee and was held therefore not to be liable to make good the damage.”

14. Hence, in view of the fact that neither the policy in question and nor the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred within the stipulated time as prescribed under the law, after the death of the original owner/ insured, the existing policy ceased to exist after the lapse of three months from the date of death of the insured. Therefore, we do not find any error in repudiation of the claim by the OP insurance company. As a result, this complaint is dismissed on both grounds- non joinder of necessary party and also on merits- at admission stage itself.
15. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member