National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Dipender Kaur on 7 October, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1676 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 05/02/2015 in Appeal No. 650/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER, DIV MALL NO.14 CODE 2717005 D-90 LAXMI NAGAR NEW DELHI-110092 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DIPENDER KAUR W/O LATE JASKENDER SAINI R/O-EWZ-47, RANAJI ENCLAVE NANGLI DAIRY NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 07 Oct 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Sh. Jaskender Saini was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. During the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, the insured passed away on 05.10.2003 in an accident. Smt. Dipender Kaur, his wife filed a claim before the Insurance Company, vide letter dated 05.04.2005. The OP asked the complainant to obtain the Succession Certificate from a court of Law. On 23.12.2005, the petitioner/OP repudiated the claim of the claimant on the ground that the vehicle in question did not stand registered in the name of the deceased on the date of accident. The vehicle was got registered after the death in the name of the deceased on 22.10.2003.
2. The complainant accordingly approached the Court of Law and got the Succession Certificate on 22.08.2009. The case was filed within two years from the receipt of Succession Certificate. It is thus apparent that the OP has been harassing the complainant to no end. This is well known fact that the Court Proceedings entail considerable time. The complainant has been running from pillar to post during the span of more than 14 years.
3. Under these circumstances, the Consumer Court has the power to exercise suo moto power to condone the delay as per the Supreme Court's authority titled as "Santosh Goyal Versus Union of India & Ors." in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12199 of 2013, decided on 06.01.2014. Besides that, the actual time of filing the petition will start from 22.08.2009 only. Therefore, we decide that the case is within time.
4. Secondly, the case is that the insurance was in the name of the deceased/insured but the registration was in the name of the previous owner. It is difficult to fathom how the Insurance Company issued the insurance in favour of the insured. Now, they are estopped from raising this question. It was their bounden duty to see the registration book before giving the Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company has itself violated the Law and it cannot complain against the insured. The Revision Petition is without merit, therefore, the same is dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER