National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. A. Kalavati on 8 August, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 877 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 29.10.2010 in Appeal No. 459/2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through its Manager 124,Connaught Place Jeevan Bharti Building, 5th Floor, Regional Office-I New Delhi ..... Petitioner Vs. Smt. A. Kalavathi W/o Late Sh. P. Armugam R/o Gundappa Street Chikmagalur 577 101 . Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Advocate Pronounced on 08.08.2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. There is delay of 26 days in filing the present revision petition, as reported by the Registry. For the reasons detailed in the application for the condonation of delay, the said delay is condoned.
2. The facts of the above said revision petition are these. One, Armugam was the owner of vehicle bearing No.KA-18-8257. He obtained insurance from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., of the above said vehicle for the period from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2009. Unfortunately, Mr. Armugam died on 12.07.2008. Complainant, Smt.A. Kalavati, is his wife and Legal Representative.
3. On 19.03.2009, the said vehicle met with an accident. The complainant had to spend more than Rs.2,96,412/- upon the repairs of the vehicle. She made a claim before the petitioner, Insurance Company Ltd. The petitioner repudiated the claim on 16.07.2009 on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, after the death of her husband.
4. Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The matter went to the State Commission. The State Commission went on to hold :-
9. We have taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the repudiation made by the OP appears to be technical one without due application of mind. How many heirs know about the clause mentioned in the policy which OP has referred that too within 90 days from the date of death of the RC owner, policy would have been transferred in the name of the heirs. OP cannot take the benefit of the ignorance and the illiteracy of the complainant.
People go for insurance under good faith that in an hour of need insurance company will come to their help but if the repudiations are to be made on technicalities the very purpose of the act will be defeated.
5. The State Commission placed reliance on Ex.R-4 which is a letter addressed by the complainant herself on 15.06.2009 to the petitioner wherein she had offered to settle the claim for Rs.1,24,290/-. Consequently, the order passed by the District Forum was modified and a Decree was passed in the sum of Rs. 1,24,290/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realization. Compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/- were also awarded.
6. We have heard both the counsel at length. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently argued that the complainant is the wife of the petitioner but very fairly admitted that she did not get the policy transferred in her name.
7. One of the terms of the policy, runs as follows:-
In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of the motor vehicle passes, may apply to have this policy transferred to the name(s) of heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle.
After the death of her husband, the complainant should have got the vehicle transferred in her name.
8. It must be borne in mind that on his death, the husband of the petitioner ceased to be a consumer and their relationship as a consumer and the insurance company as a service provider came to an end. This is not a fact of mere technicality. It is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to get the policy transferred in her name. The National Commission in RP 2964/2007, decided on 22.11.2011, took the similar views, the facts of the case are these:
Smt.Ratna Jain, who was the owner of the Indica Car bearing No. AP 15 P 6285, got the vehicle insured for the period from 03.03.2004 to 02.03.2005. Respondent/complainant purchased the said car from her and got it transferred in his name on 08.03.2004.
Respondent along with his family members went to Vijayawada Krishna Pushkaram in the said car. The car was stolen while the family of the respondent were taking holy bath in the Krishna river.
Respondent reported the matter to the police who registered a case of theft in Crime No. 260/2004.
Respondent also obtained a final report submitted by the police before the Magistrate that the car was not traceable. Claim was not settled.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not settling the claim, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.
It was held that :-
In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and The Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle.
Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in not settling the claim.
9. Secondly, it also transpired that there was no fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Although the counsel for the petitioner has tried to show that fitness certificate was subsequently obtained, the survey report clearly and unequivocally shows that the fitness certificate was valid up to 04.09.2008. Fitness Certificate was not renewed at the time of the accident. The production of the fitness certificate subsequently is of no consequence. On both these counts, the revision petition is accepted. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. The orders passed by the foras below stand setaside.
......
(J.M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER md/3