BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 110 of 2017
Date of Institution : 19.5.2017.
Date of Decision : 25.1.2018.
Sandeep Punia (age 55 years) son of Sh. Manphool Singh, resident of village Bazidpur Bhona, Tehsil Abohar, Distt. Fazilka (Punjab) Now at Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
United India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Ellenabad, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was/is owner in possession of Mahindra XUV 500 FWD bearing registration No.PB22F/9805 which was registered in the name of his father Sh. Manphool Singh son of Krishan Lal who died on 21.1.2014. That the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was fully insured with the opposite party at the relevant time and op had also issued a policy to this effect after taking all the consideration and service charges etc. from the complainant. It is further averred that after purchase of above said policy from op, the vehicle of the complainant had suddenly met with an accident on 17.11.2015 at Sirsa road Fatehabad and in that accident the vehicle of the complainant got damaged and at that time the matter was reported to the police. A rapat no.13 was also entered by the police post Bus stand Fatehabad on 24.12.2015 on the statement of complainant. That immediately after the above said accident, an information regarding the accident was also submitted to the office of op and a Surveyor was also appointed by the office of op who had surveyed the damaged vehicle of complainant and after getting the permission of the office of op company, complainant had got repaired his damaged vehicle from the authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra situated at Hisar road, Sirsa. That the complainant had incurred an amount of Rs.6,91,978/- on the above said damaged vehicle and this amount was also paid by complainant from his own pocket and after that complainant had also submitted all the relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle in question alongwith all the original bills of repairing etc. to the office of op as per the instruction of op’s office and the office of op asked to the complainant that his claim will be passed after getting some office formalities and a cheque of the above said amount will be issued. It is further averred that later on the op’s office had demanded a copy of the death certificate of the registered owner of the vehicle namely Manphool Singh i.e. father of the complainant and then the complainant had supplied the copy of death certificate of his father to the office of op alongwith a written request to pass the own damaged claim of the vehicle in question and complainant had visited personally to the office of op and the office of op had assured to the complainant to pass the claim within a day or two but the op has not passed the claim. It is further averred that later on complainant had made several requests to the op to pass the claim and disburse the amount but the office of op every time put off the matter with one pretext or the other and till today op has not passed the claim of the complainant and continuously harassing the complainant. That complainant had issued a legal notice to the op through his counsel on 16.3.2017 which was duly received by op’s office and vide reply of the notice, the op company had repudiated the claim of complainant wrongly and illegally and denied to pass the claim of complainant by assigning the wrong and illegal reasons. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer of the company, hence present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, as policy has been got issued in the name of deceased Manphool so otherwise there cannot be any contractual obligation with the dead person as contract cannot be entered into with the dead person, hence apart from playing a fraud with the company by way of concealment of material facts, by way of breach of principle of utmost good faith, insurance company does not have any liability to make payment of compensation as contract from very beginning is void ab-nitio and that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. Complainant did not disclose name, particular of all the legal heirs of deceased Manphool. It is further submitted that complainant has filed false and baseless litigation against the company as he or someone else who-so-ever are legal representative/ legal heirs or person interest in the vehicle knowingly very well that Manphool had died on 21.1.2014 and insurance was got continued from 17.9.2015 to 16.9.2016 in the name of dead person as well as RC in the name of dead person and never got effected the change of name in the RC and thereafter get the insurance done in the name of registered owner by submitting the relevant documents. The complainant is neither registered owner nor insured, thus has no insurable interest, hence present complaint is not maintainable. That apart from above preliminary objections, it is submitted that accident allegedly took place on 17.11.2015 in the area of Fatehabad and intimation to the company has been given on 30.11.2015 and matter has been reported to the police on 24.12.2015 by way of rapat no.10 and 13 of 24.12.2015. The competent authority i.e. Regional Office deputed Shri I.B. Mehta Surveyor and Loss Assessor for survey, who visited Garg Motors and it is only on 28.3.2016, answering ops came to know about the death of insured, when registered letter sent by Mr. I.B. Mehta was returned back with the remarks that insured had died. The amount allegedly claimed is an estimated amount. Surveyor assessed the loss with net liability to the extent of Rs.4,01000/- after deduction of salvage but a bare perusal of record reflects the manipulation, management with regard to nature of loss and rapats by way of concocted version, which is self explanatory and Forum is requested to take judicial notice of the same. Non registration of DDR immediately reflects that something material is being held deliberately, malafidely by the complainant in action collusion, connivance with the help of manage people to get compensation on account of damage to the vehicle, which cannot be granted otherwise to the complainant. It is also submitted that complainant has not submitted his aadhar card, voter card, ration card showing and proving his residence at Sirsa. Clever attempt is being made to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum as complainant is resident of Punjab and the accident occurred at Fatehabad. It is further submitted that in the rapat, the complainant has been shown to be the driver of vehicle and Manphool has been reflected to be registered owne and there is no reference of death of Manphool. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved fact that father of complainant Manphool Singh was the owner of vehicle Mahindra XUV 500FWD bearing registration No.PB22F/9805 which was insured with the opposite party for the period 17.9.2015 to 16.9.2016. The said vehicle suddenly met with an accident on 17.11.2015 at Sirsa road Fatehabad and same was got damaged. Due intimation was given to opposite party and rapat no.13 was also got entered by police post Bus stand Fatehabad. The claim of Rs.6,91,978/- was lodged with the opposite party but however the claim of the complainant was repudiated illegally and arbitrarily on the ground that registered owner of the vehicle namely Manphool Singh had already expired on 21.1.2014 and the vehicle was got insured in the year 2015 which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has contended that it is proved fact on record that vehicle bearing registration No.PB22F/9805 was registered in the name of Manphool Singh son of Krishan who was father of present complainant and said Manphool Singh had died on 21.1.2014 whereas the vehicle was got insured by complainant for the period 17.9.2015 to 16.9.2016 knowing well that the registered owner of the vehicle has already expired and by concealing fact of death, complainant got policy renewed. It is settled principle of law that all the contracts with a dead person are nullity and void abinitio. Since there was no contract between insurance company as well as deceased Manphool Singh, as such there is no liability of the op from any corner. It has also been contended that neither the complainant got vehicle transferred in his name or in the name of any other legal heir of Manphool Singh nor they ever informed company regarding death of Manphool Singh who was registered owner of the vehicle prior to the issuance of the insurance policy. Moroever, complainant has not submitted his aadhar card, voter card or ration card showing and proving his residence at Sirsa. The complainant is resident of Punjab and accident had occurred at Fatehabad and complainant is not consumer of the answering op. In the rapat, the complainant is shown to be driver of the vehicle and Manphool Singh has been reflected to be registered owner and there is no reference of death of Manphool Singh and this fact has also been concealed deliberately and malafidely not only with the police but also with the insurance company while giving intimation dated 27.11.2015 received by company on 30.11.2015.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
8. The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments of his complaint. He has also furnished copy of his aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of rapat Ex.C2, tax invoice Ex.C3, application Ex.C4, death certificate Ex.C5, legal notice Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7, reply to notice Ex.C8, copy of insurance policy Ex.C9, copy of RC Ex.C10 and copyof sales certificate Ex.C11, On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Gopi Ram, Micro Incharge as Ex.R1 who has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement of op. The op has also furnished affidavit of Sh. I.B. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Ex.R2, copy of policy Ex.R3, copy of motor claim intimation letter Ex.R4, copy of rapat Ex.R5, copy of motor survey final report Ex.R6, copy of letter dated 17.2.2015 Ex.R7, copy of envelope Ex.R8, copy of RC Ex.R9, copy of motor survey report Ex.R10, copy of legal notice Ex.R11, copy of reply to notice Ex.R12 and copies of postal receipts Ex.R13 and Ex.R14.
9. The perusal of the affidavit of complainant reveals that complainant himself has deposed categorically in para no.1 of the affidavit that vehicle was registered in the name of his father Manphool Singh son of Sh. Krishan Lal who died on 21.1.2014 and this fact also finds mention in para no.1 of the complaint. The affidavit further reveals that complainant has not uttered even a single word in his complaint as well as in the affidavit that said vehicle has ever been transferred in the name of complainant or any of the legal heirs of deceased Manphool Singh nor the complainant has placed on record list of the legal heirs of deceased Manphool Singh.
10. The copy of DDR Ex.C2 also reveals that complainant did not get it recorded that Manphool Singh registered owner has expired. The complainant has tendered death certificate of deceased Manphool Singh as Ex.C5 which reflects date of death as 21.1.2014 and the perusal of the insurance policy Ex.C9 reveals that same was issued with effect from 17.9.2015 and was valid till the midnight of 16.9.2016 and same was issued in the name of Manphool Singh son of Krishan Lal, resident of VPO Bazidpur Bhoma, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (Punjab). It is apparently clear from death certificate that Manphool Singh registered owner of the vehicle had expired on 21.1.2014 whereas present policy under which the complainant has lodged the claim was issued on 17.9.2015 for a period of one year meaning thereby that at the time of inception of policy, said Manphool Singh registered owner of the vehicle was not alive nor he was in position to enter into any insurance contract with the op being a dead person. Further more, there is no evidence of complainant from which it could be presumed that at the time of taking the policy, the complainant ever made any intimation to the op that registered owner of the vehicle has already expired and they want policy of the vehicle in the name of LRs of the deceased Manphool Singh in order to keep the vehicle roadworthy.
11. As per provisions of Contract Act and settled law, all contracts with a dead person are void abinitio and nullity. Since the registered owner of the vehicle in whose name policy was purchased had already expired much prior to inception of the policy, so contract of insurance was nothing but a nullity and void abinitio. Further more, it is proved fact on record that policy was not purchased by complainant being the LR of deceased Manphool Singh nor he has claimed any where in his complaint as well as in the affidavit furnished by him. The complainant has not brought on record LRs of deceased Manphool Singh who was registered owner of the vehicle. So, under these circumstances it is difficult to presume that complainant has any insurable interest to exercise the same against op and is entitled to any claim as prayed for. So, from the evidence it can be presumed that complainant has failed to establish his insurable interest in the vehicle and as such not entitled to claim as per law.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.01.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
