State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak Kothari vs United India Insurance Comapany Ltd & ... on 25 January, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/3028)
Appeal No.747/2011
Instituted on : 05/12/2011
Deepak Kothari, S/o Dilip Kothari,
Karta Dilip Kothari (H.U.F.),
Gandhi Chowk,
Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Appellant.
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch : Bhatapara, Station Road,
Bhatapara.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
Raipur (C.G.)
3. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch : Mahasamund,
District : Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Respondents.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri G.C. Jain, for appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, for respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 25/01/2012 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The appellant herein, was complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.38/2010. His // 2 // complaint for seeking compensation of Rs.7,70,160/- along with further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent/Insurance Company, on account of damages to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.11.201l. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case as per the complaint are that, a Tavera vehicle bearing No.C.G.07/9019, was of the ownership of Shri Dilip Kothari (H.U.F.) and was insured by the respondent/Insurance Company. Shri Dilip Kothari was father of the complainant and vehicle was got insured from the Insurance Company in the name of Shri Dilip Kothari, Karta of H.U.F. It has further been averred by the complainant before District Forum that insurance policy was issued by the respondent/Insurance Company in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari. Ultimately, the said vehicle suffered a road accident on 23.10.2009. A claim was preferred by the complainant before Insurance Company, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company, on the ground that at the time of making proposal for the insurance, the insured had already died and insurance policy was obtained in the name of a dead person, so, it was not a valid contract, so, the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any compensation on the basis of such ab-initio void contract.
// 3 //
3. Learned District Forum, agreed with the contentions raised by the Insurance Company before it and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
4. We have heard in detail arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
5. Proposal form, has been filed by the Insurance Company before District Forum and in that proposal form, the name of the proposer and address has been mentioned as Mr. Dilip Kumar Kothari, C/o Deepak Kumar Kothari, Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund. It has been signed as D.K. Jain. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a fabricated document filed by the Insurance Company before the District Forum and in the original proposal form, Dilip Kumar Kothari (H.U.F.) C/o Deepak Kumar Kothari, was mentioned, whereas in the photocopy, which has been filed before District Forum, the words "H.U.F." are missing. On his request, when learned counsel for the Insurance Company has shown us the original proposal form, then we noticed that in that proposal form also words "H.U.F." are missing. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that this document is also not the original proposal form filed by the complainant/appellant before Insurance Company for seeking insurance and is also a fabricated document.
// 4 //
6. The insurance policy, which has been issued by the Insurance Company, is showing name of the insured as Dilip Kumar Kothari. It was received by the complainant/appellant. The name of the insured has been mentioned only as Dilip Kumar Kothari, C/o Deepak Kumar Kothari. It appears that at the time of receiving insurance certificate, no objection was raised by the appellant before the Insurance Company. Apart from it, in the registration certificate of the insured vehicle, it has been mentioned that the vehicle was previously belonging to Shri Ajaj Ahmed and was transferred to Shri Dilip Kumar Kothari, S/o Shri Deepak Kumar Kothari, Gandhi Chowk, Mahasamund and in that document also there is no mention of any H.U.F. in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a document filed by the Insurance Company as O.P.11, which is application for transfer of ownership of a Motor Vehicle moved by Shri Ajaj Ahmed, wherein he prayed that vehicle be transferred in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari, H.U.F. (Karta) Son/Wife/Daughter of Deepak Kumar Kothari. This also contains some overwriting, as earlier Deepak Kumar Kothari was written and later on at the place of Deepak, Dilip was written and in second portion, Deepak was written at the place of Dilip.
// 5 //
8. These documents creating a lot of confusion regarding ownership of the vehicle, but for the present on the basis of the proposal form, which has been filed by the Insurance Company and Certificate of Insurance, it cannot be said that anybody else than Dilip Kumar Kothari was insured. Undisputedly, Dilip Kumar Kothari was not alive when proposal was made and if the Insurance Company has refused to pay any amount on the basis of insurance policy, which has been obtained in the name of a deceased person, then it cannot be said that the Insurance Company, has committed any deficiency in service.
9. However, the appellant/complainant, is always free to establish his right to get compensation from the Insurance Company on the ground that proposal was made for getting the vehicle insured in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari (H.U.F.) and the vehicle was wrongly insured in the name of a dead person at the place of H.U.F. If such questions are raised, then they will require elaborate inquiry and trial, which is not possible in summary procedure, to be applied in consumer complaint. Therefore, liberty is granted to the appellant/complainant to file Civil Suit or any other appropriate proceedings, if so advised, before any competent Civil Court or other Forum. Any finding recorded by this Commission in this order or by District Forum in the impugned order, will not create any hurdle in establishing the right of the appellant/complainant of getting compensation from the Insurance Company, because findings, which // 6 // have been recorded herein, are merely in exercise of the jurisdiction available under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to ascertain whether respondent/Insurance Company can be held deficient in providing services to the appellant or not.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2012 /01/2012