State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harish Ahuja on 14 November, 2017
Daily Order IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments : 14.11.2017 Date of Decision :20.11.2017 First Appeal No.258/2015 IN THE MATTER OF: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opposite State Bank Of India, New Delhi-110020. ......Appellant Versus Shri Harish Ahuja, S/o. Late Shri Madan Lal Ahuja, R/o. B-1/92, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063. ....Respondent HON'BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes Present: Shri Vikas Bhadana, Counsel for the appellant. Shri K.K. Shukla, Counsel for the respondent. PER : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER JUDGEMENT
Assailing the orders dated 18.02.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi in CC No.1505/2008 in the matter of Shri Harish Ahuja vs. Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., holding OP guilty of deficiency in service and directing to pay IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.65,000/- with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization as also compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the harassment and mental agony, the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., for short `Appellant' has filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act), against Shri Harish Ahuja, hereinafter referred to as respondent, praying for the relief as under:-
a. allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgement dated 18.02.15 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint no.1505/2008.
b. pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are these.
The appellant insurance company, on the request of the respondent, had issued a private car package policy No.13013 723 11108044 for the period from 25.04.2007 to 24.04.2008 in the name of Late Krishna Kumari Ahuja, the mother of the respondents. The registration number of the vehicle is DL 4CK 0370. The policy was obtained in the name of the person who passed away six years before the date of issuance of the insurance policy. The respondents kept on obtaining policies for the said car from different insurance companies without disclosing the factum of the death of his mother. The appellant has alleged that the suppression of this material information from them amounts to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as also the provisions of India Motor Tariff.
It so happened that on 16.03.2007 the said car was stolen, the intimation of which was furnished to the appellant as also to the police authorities by the respondents. It was at that of point of time that the appellant could draw the knowledge of the fact that the policy has been issued in the name of the person passed away fix years back. The appellant have therefore alleged that the policy in the facts and circumstances of the case is void ab-initio and therefore they had repudiated the claim.
Repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was assailed before the ld. Distt. Fora by way of a complaint which complaint was allowed by way of an order, impugned herein.
Grounds of the appeal are that the order impugned is in violation of the provisions of law, equity and fair play. Their further submission is that the order impugned is contrary to the insurance laws since the claimant had no insurable interest in the insured car as the same was registered in the name of his late mother. The respondents had suppressed material fact and thus not entitled to any claim as prayed for and allowed by the ld. Distt. Fora. The appellant have strongly denied any deficiency on their part in repudiating the claim.
The respondents were in the first instance noticed after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and in response thereto the reply to the appeal has been filed, stating that the appeal is devoid of merit and filed only to harass him as there exists no impediments or lacuna or illegality in the order impugned herein.
The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 14.11.2017 when counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case.
The ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the point that the respondents having obtained the policy in the name of the person since deceased, has suppressed the material information and thus not liable for any claim. He has also drawn our attention to an order dt. 04.09.2014 passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC in RP No.3430/2013 and others, holding that "Obtaining of the insurance policy in the name of a dead person is void ab initio."
The appellant have also drawn our attention to a judgement of the Hon'ble NCDRC passed on 18.08.2017 in RP No.3337/2016 in the matter of Ms. Nirasha Singh vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. holding as under:-
Admittedly, the policy in force at the time of death of the husband of the complainant expired on 25.10.2011. Admittedly, thereafter another policy was issued by the insurer for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 in the name of the deceased. On expiry of that policy, there was a break of 6 days and then a policy for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013, again in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant was issued. Had the complainant already requested the insurer on 15.10.2011 to transfer the policy in her name, she would not have accepted the insurance policy issued in the name of her deceased husband for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 and would have returned the said policy to the insurer with a request to change the name of the insured in the said policy. That having not been done, the obvious inference is that no request on 15.10.2011 for transfer of the policy in the name of the complainant was made to the insurer.
Even after the policy for the period from 26.10.2011 to 25.10.2012 had expired and then a policy effective from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 was issued, the complainant did not protest on account of the said policy being issued in the name of the deceased husband and did not ask for amendment of the policy by changing the name of the insured from the name of her deceased husband to her name. This is yet another indicator that the complainant did not intimate the death of her husband to the insurer and did not seek issuance of the policy in her name.
It thus stand proved that insurance policy for two terms - firstly from 26.11.2011 to 25.10.2012 and then from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 were obtained in the name of a dead person. The contract in the name of a dead person being a nullity in the eye of law, the insurer is not bound to make payment to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by her due to accident of the insured vehicle.
The counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the insurance company having accepted the premium is under obligation to accept the claim and accordingly the orders passed by the Distt. Fora granting compensation suffers from no infirmity. He had accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have given our careful consideration to the matter. We find that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the ld. Distt. Fora. Mere fact that the registration of the vehicle has not been transferred in the name of the respondent is no ground to invalidate the insurance. The premium has been accepted. The said premium is for a vehicle. The insurance done is of the vehicle and not of the person. This factum is indisputable. In the orders passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC referred to by the appellant, the issue was the insurance in respect of the person but issue in the given case is insurance in respect of a car since stolen. It will not make any substantial change in respect of the claim for a stolen car whether the insurance issued is in the name of the respondent or his mother since deceased.
The Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagjit Singh as reported in IV (2016) CPJ 350 (NC) has held that "The complainant had applied for transfer of insurance policy and has even paid the premium but it was mistakenly issued in name of earlier owner. There is no reason to suspect any foul play a wrong doing on the part of owner user of vehicle and theft had actually happened and claim genuine. Insurance certificate/ cover note valid on the date of incident, Repudiation not justified."
Similarly in the matter of Mallama vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in ST (2014) 5 SC 47 their Lordship in the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the insurance stands automatically transferred once the owner of the vehicle changes.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and discussion done, and keeping in view the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that there exists no infirmity in orders passed by the ld, Distt. Fora and accordingly we uphold the orders passed.
Ordered accordingly.
Let a copy of the order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as required statutorily. Let a copy of the order may be sent to District Forum for information.
File be consigned to records.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER (JUDICIAL)