Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/656/2013

Harminder Singh S/o. Manjit singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United IndiaInsurance CompanyLtd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.L.Dhiman

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 656 of  2013.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 09.09.2013

                                                                                              Date of decision: 19.02.2016.

Harminder Singh aged about 38 years son of late Shri Manjit Singh, resident of H. No. 325 Chopra Garden, Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, B.O. Jagadhri Road, Near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar. ( Insurer of Motorcycle No. HR-02-P-9035 .w.e.f. 16.09.2011 to 15.09.2012).
2. United India Insurance Company limited, Regd. & Head Office 24,m Whites Road, Chennai-600014.       

 

                                                                                                                                                                   … Respondents.

3. Gurvinder Singh son of late Shri Manjit Singh,
4. Jaswinder Kaur daughter of late Shri Manjit Singh,
5. Smt. Paramjit Kaur widow of Late Shri Manjit Singh, All residents of H. No. 325, Chopra Garden, Yamuna Nagar.

Performa respondents

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        

Present: Sh. S.L.Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. V.P.S. Trehan, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

              Sh. Deepak Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for OPs No. 3 to 5. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Harminder Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents No.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred as OPs No.1 & 2) be directed to pay the claim amount of  Rs. 20,000/- on account of theft of motorcycle alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that Manjit Singh son of Sh. Balwant Singh resident of H. No. 325, Chopra Garden Yamuna Nagar was the father of complainant who purchased the HONDA SHINE motorcycle in the year 2006 bearing Chassis No. 68007056 Engine No. 20969. The aforesaid motorcycle was registered with the Registration Authority, Yamuna Nagar and allotted registration No. HR-02P-9035. Late Sh. Manjit Singh used to insure his motorcycle with the insurance company during his life time. Sh. Manjit Singh died on 6.7.2009 leaving behind complainant, Gurvinder Singh OP No.3 son, Smt. Jaswinder Kaur OP No.4 daughter and Smt. Paramjit Kaur OP No.5 widow. The motorcycle in question was used by complainant and his brother Gurvinder Singh. The motorcycle in question was not got transferred by the L.Rs of late Shri Manjit Singh in their name. The complainant got insured the motorcycle in question on 16.9.2011 in the name of his father Shri Manjit Singh with OP No.1 vide policy bearing No. 1101013111P001058469 (Annexure C-2) having validity from 16.09.2011 to 15.09.2012. During the currency of insurance policy in question, on 04.07.2012 complainant went to Parker Palace Yamuna Nagar to attend the opening ceremony at about 10 P.M. after parking the motorcycle in question by the side of the Gate of Parker Palace. After 20 minutes, the complainant came outside the Parker Palace and found his motorcycling missing. The complainant intimated the police of P.S. Yamuna Nagar  and FIR No. 298 dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure C-1) was registered by the police of P.S.City, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant intimated the Op No.1 about the theft of his motorcycle. The case was investigated by the police but the motorcycle was not traced out. The police also could not find out the person who had stolen the motorcycle. The police filed the untraceable report in the Hon’ble Court of Sh. Rajesh Sharma, CJM, Jagadhri (Annexure C-3). The complainant went to the office of OP No.1 and requested them to release the claim but they flatly refused to release the claim of complainant on the ground that the insurance policy is not in his name and rejected the claim. Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OPs No.1 and 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and on merit it has been mentioned that father of complainant Sh. Manjit Singh died on 06.07.2009 as such any contract done on behalf of dead man is void ab initio, hence, insurance cover of motorcycle make Honda Shine bearing registration No. HR02R-9035 was obtained by concealing the true fact i.e. death of registered owner and got it insured in the name of dead man, has no meaning in the eyes of law and there remains no insurable interest of any legal heirs when the insurance became void. It has been further mentioned that the complainant himself has admitted that motorcycle in question was not got transferred by the Legal heirs of late Sh. Manjit Singh in their name and complainant used to insure the motorcycle in the name of late Sh. Manjit Singh from the last 2-3 years as lastly he has got insured the said motorcycle on 16.09.2011 whereas Sh. Manjit Singh died on 06.07.2009 as such it is clear that cover cannot by way of insurance cover/policy void ab initio.  As such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OPs No.3 to 5 filed their written statement admitting the contents of complaint and prayed that they have no objection if the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the claim amount is ordered to be given to the complainant as prayed for.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of FIR No. 298 dated 06.07.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of untraceable report as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of affidavit of Paramjit Kaur as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of death certificate as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

 6.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhup Singh Sr. Branch Manager as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 whereas counsel for OPs No. 3 to 5 filed joint affidavit of OPs No. 3 to 5 as Annexure RW/B and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.   

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in their reply and prayed for its dismissal.

8.                     Admittedly, the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02P-9035 was insured with the OP vide Policy cover Note No. 1101013111P001058469 (Annexure C-2) having validity from 16.09.2011 to 15.09.2012 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of late Manjit Singh father of complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 04.07.2012 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 whereas it is the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 that father of the complainant Manjit Singh died on 6.7.2009 and insurance policy in question obtained on 16.9.2011 i.e. after two years of death in the name of dead person and as such contract done on behalf of the dead man is void ab initio meaning thereby that the insurance cover of motorcycle in question was obtained by concealing the true fact i.e. death of the registered owner/insured and got insured the same in the name of dead man, has no meaning in the eyes of law and there remains no insurable interest of any legal heirs when the insurance became void. The arguments raised on behalf of OPs are supported by case law titled as Didar Singh & Another Versus Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2014) CPJ page 1 National Commission, United India Insurance Company & Others Versus Bhupinder Singh, III (2014) CPJ Page 20 National Commission and Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Versus Uma Rani, III (2013) CPJ page 115 State Commission, Haryana wherein it has been held that death of proposer before acceptance of proposal- Contract of insurance not concluded- Death of insured- Claim repudiated- Alleged deficiency in service- District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal- Where a proposer dies before acceptance of proposal by LIC, there is no concluded contract of insurance- Proposer died on 6.1.2010 and till that date proposal not accepted because same was incomplete and policy of deceased-life assured issued on 10.1.2010- Repudiation of claim not amount to deficiency in service- Complaint dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents, it is evident that the complainant admitted in his complaint that his father Manjit Singh died on 6.7.2009 i.e. three (3) years ago before the alleged theft and two years before getting the insurance policy in question. It has been further admitted that motorcycle in question as well as insurance of the motorcycle in question stands in the name of deceased Manjit Singh since then. Meaning thereby that complainant alongwith other LRs never tried to transfer the motorcycle in question in their names and further not got the insurance policy transferred in their name. Even, the complainant getting the insurance policy in the name of his deceased father from the last two (2) years by suppressing the material facts from the OPs. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated is not tenable as the complainant failed to convince this Forum that in what manner the OPs are liable to make the payment especially when he was himself concealing the actual facts before getting the insurance policy in the name of his deceased father. It is a settled law that insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and insured and contract cannot be executed with a deceased person and every contract done on behalf of the dead person is void ab initio.

10.                   Hence, we are of the considered view that at the time of theft the complainant was not having any insurable interest as neither the motor cycle in question was insured in his name nor he was a registered owner. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 for repudiating the claim of complainant and present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 19.02.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER