State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Vijay Kohli on 21 July, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 29 / 2007
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
......Revisionist / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Vijay Kohli
.....Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Niranjan Prakash, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
Sh. T.S. Bindra, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 21/07/2008
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
Insurance company challenged the propriety and legality of the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2004, rejecting the contention of the insurance company that the complainant has no insurable interest, so as to claim compensation by way of indemnification of the loss occasioned to insured vehicle No. UP07C / 4277 and, as such, the complaint was not legally maintainable.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the case. Maruti Esteem car No. UP07C / 4277 was insured with the revisionist - insurance company and policy of insurance was renewed from time to time. Lastly on 25.01.2002, cover note dated 25.01.2002 was issued in respect of the said vehicle by way of renewal of the insurance for the period from 28.01.2002 to 27.01.2003, on receipt of the premium by the insurance company.
2During the said insurance coverage, vehicle met with an accident and surveyor was appointed to assess the loss occasioned. The company's surveyor vide his report dated 14.03.2003 informed the company that Sh. J.N. Kohli, the insured named in the policy, had expired on 18.12.2002, prior to the renewal of the policy of insurance for the period 28.01.2002 to 27.01.2003. Complainant Sh. Vijay Kohli S/o late Sh. J.N. Kohli, also confirmed the fact of death of his father on the said date vide his letter dated 23.05.2003. On 26.05.2003, insurance company sent a letter (Paper No. 22) to Sh. C.P. Singh, its Development Officer of Rishikesh Branch, to explain as to how the insurance was transacted by him, even though the insured named in the policy of insurance Sh. J.N. Kohli, had already died on 18.12.2002. The vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant on 09.12.2003. These facts are not in dispute.
3. Referring to the above facts, learned counsel for the insurance company persuasively submitted that the contract of insurance for the period in question was not legally valid in view of the fact that one of the contracting party Sh. J.N. Kohli (deceased) was not alive on the said date and had already died on 18.12.2002 and, therefore, his son, the complainant Sh. Vijay Kohli, who has no insurable interest in the vehicle, was not entitled for reimbursement of the loss, resulting from the accident of the said vehicle. According to him, the District Forum failed to consider this legal aspect of the matter in proper perspective and made an error in placing reliance on some reported decisions, to reject the similar contention placed before it. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant urged that it was a case of continued renewal of the insurance policy of the company from time to time and that the purpose of the policy of insurance being indemnification against the loss, the complainant being the actual beneficiary of the policy of insurance against the loss actually suffered 3 by him, had insurable interest as such and to file consumer complaint for award of compensation in his favour. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the complainant had in his favour a Will (Paper Nos. 24 to 25) of his father late Sh. J.N. Kohli and there was no denying the fact that the registration of the vehicle was rightly transferred in his name on 09.12.2003 and was entitled to claim compensation from the insurance company.
4. In our considered view, the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant carry conviction and that the District Forum passed the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction legally and the insurance company's revision petition lack merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. The reason for the above conclusion is that the purpose, for which the policy of insurance of a vehicle is obtained, is to seek indemnification against the loss occasioned on the happening of certain event such as accident and the benefits so available under the policy of insurance, could very well be availed by the beneficiary of such service (issuing of policy of insurance by the insurance company). The complainant has a Will executed by his late father Sh. J.N. Kohli in his favour and the same came to be operative as soon as the said testator died on 18.12.2002. The policy of insurance of the vehicle was renewed as a result of the steps initiated by company's Development Officer stated above and who had in a routine manner, got the policy renewed on receipt of the due premium in the name of late Sh. J.N. Kohli, who had already died prior to the renewal of the policy, on 18.12.2002, although the policy was to be renewed in favour of the successor-in-interest of the said deceased and in this case, the complainant. In these peculiar circumstances, the insurance could not avoid obligation arising out of the renewal of the policy of 4 the insurance and the purpose, for which, it was issued by the insurance company under the garb of its own mistake. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the complainant rightly referred to the observation of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma; III (2007) CPJ 367, to bring home his point of view that it is the vehicle, which is insured and not the person. It was also observed in the said case that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has widened the definition of 'consumer' to an extent that it includes a person, who is the direct beneficiary of such services, other than the person, who actually hired or availed the service for consideration. This observation also support the contention made by the learned counsel for the complainant. It shall not be out of place to mention here that this Commission has, by its order dated 21.05.2008, rendered in First Appeal No. 179 of 2007; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Gajender Singh Butola and another, upheld the beneficiary of insurance service entitled to be reimbursed for loss occasioned to the insured vehicle, although the policy of insurance of the vehicle was renewed in the name of another person, who ceased to be the owner of the vehicle prior to the renewal of the policy of insurance. In the instant case, the Development Officer of the insurance company was obliged to collect correct facts before getting the policy of insurance renewed, but he failed to do so and despite the death of the registered owner of the vehicle, got the policy renewed in the said dead person's name. For such a mistake, the complainant, as stated above, fall within the purview of the beneficiary of such service and was entitled to claim compensation by way of indemnification of the loss and has insurable interest to file complaint for Redressal of his grievance.
56. On the face of the facts of the case, the decision in the matter of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Jagdev Singh; 2006 (2) CPR 118, pressed into service by the learned counsel for the insurance company, has no relevance, in as much as the case pertained to the application of the provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides a procedure to intimate the fact of transfer of vehicle to the insurer, in order to make necessary changes in the certificate of insurance. In other words, this decision cannot be of any help to the cause of the insurance company.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, we conclude that the District Forum exercised its jurisdiction legally and properly in rejecting the contention of the insurance company in passing the impugned order dated 18.10.2007 and thereby upholding the right of the complainant to pursue for the remedy of his grievance before the Consumer Fora.
8. In view of above, revision petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal