BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.450 of 2017

Date of Instt. 22.11.2017

Date of Decision: 03.04.2019

Parneet Singh Minhas, aged 50 years son of late Shri Anoop Singh Minhas, resident of House No.1, Punjab Avenue, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, having its Registered Office at 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700 071.

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No.II, 89, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. M. S. Sachdev, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant Parneet Singh Minhas, wherein alleged that a vehicle make Toyota Fortuner bearing Registration No.PB-8-BL-1199 was registered in the name of Shri Anoop Singh Minhas, father of the complainant. Unfortunately, Shri Anoop Singh Minhas, father of the complainant had expired on 05.11.2014. The factum of death of Sh. Anoop Singh Minhas was in knowledge of the OPs and the agent of the OPs and even knowing fully well that Shri Anoop Singh Minhas, father of the complainant had expired, the insurance in respect of the aforesaid vehicle was renewed by the agent of the OPs. For the last time, the insurance of the vehicle was renewed by the agent of the OPs on 04.09.2016, after receiving a premium of Rs.22,500/-. It was told to the agent of the OPs that Shri Anoop Singh Minhas has expired and the policy should be issued in the name of the complainant, but the agent of the OPs stated that as the vehicle is standing in the name of Shri Anoop Singh Minhas, so the policy will be issued only in the name of Shri Anoop Singh Minhas. It was also told by the agent of the OPs that there is no need for taking the policy in the name of the complainant and it will be mentioned in the policy that the vehicle in question is being used by the complainant being son and legal heir of late Shri Anoop Singh Minhas. It is further to be mentioned herein that even prior to the present insurance, the insurance for the previous year i.e. for the year 2015-16 was also stood in the name of Shri Anoop Singh Minhas and even during the time, an accident had taken place and the claim was cleared by the OPs at that time and the bank transferred the amount in the name of Shri Anoop Singh Minhas.

2. That on 24.12.2016, an accident took place and in the said accident, the above said vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-BL-1199 was totally damaged and the young son of the complainant namely Ajit Singh Minhas had also expired, who was having driving license. That immediately after the death of son of the complainant and within time frame, as prescribed under the law, the claim was lodged with the office of the OPs, after fulfilling all the formalities. Thereafter, the complainant have been regularly approaching the office of the OPs from time to time for the purpose of clearing the claim, but the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 06.06.2017 which was sent by the OP No.2 in the name of the complainant, wherein it was mentioned that the claim of the complainant is repudiated due to the reason that Anoop Singh Minhas had already expired on 05.11.2014. The complainant as well as his family members have no objection, if the claim amount is disbursed in the name of Sh. Anoop Singh Minhas in his account because the same can be deposited in his bank account which is still being run, but the OPs were not ready to hear the complainant and thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 19.07.2017, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.7,88,600/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- and further OPs be also directed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @18% per annum.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint has not been filed by the complainant in proper form and therefore, the same is not maintainable in the present format, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that no specific and justifiable allegation regarding the negligence or deficiency in providing the services has been made out, only layman conjectures has been averred and hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed out rightly on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the insured person Anoop Singh Minhas father of the complainant was expired on 05.11.2014. These material facts were not disclosed by the complainant at the time when the complainant got renewed the insurance policy. The other averments in the complaint are not only incorrect, but also misleading. The complainant is abusing the process of law. On merits, it is admitted that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Anoop Singh Minhas and claim has been also submitted by the complainant for reimbursement of the insurance claim of insured damaged vehicle, but the same was repudiated and further the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1- to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S. K. Bagga, Br. Manager as Ex.OP-A, Affidavit of Rajeshwar Nath as Ex.OP-B and Affidavit of Sh. Jangbir Singh as Ex.OP-C along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the OPs, very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the entire case of the complainant as well as defence of the OPs, we find that the ownership of the insured vehicle PB-8-BL-1199 in the name of Anoop Singh Minhas and the said vehicle was met with an accident on 24.12.2016 and whereby a damage was caused to the said vehicle and then filing of insurance claim by the complainant and the same has been repudiated by the OPs, are not facts in dispute.

8. Now, question remains before us only to analyze and adjudicate whether the insurance claim of the complainant has been rightly or wrongly repudiated on the ground that the said insurance was issued in the name of dead person. For that purpose, we have to go through the repudiation letter, which is placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-5 dated 06.06.2017, whereby the claim of the complainant has been repudiated only on the ground that the insured had already died prior to inception of the insurance policy and thus, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim and accordingly, the insurance claim is repudiated.

9. It is admitted case of the complainant that his father Anoop Singh Minhas expired on 05.11.2014 and the vehicle in question stood in the name of deceased Anoop Singh Minhas, but the story propounded by the complainant that he had informed to the agent of the OP that his father Anoop Singh Minhas has already expired and make a request to renew the insurance policy in the name of complainant firstly for the period 2015-16, then from 2016-17, but on both occasions, the agent stated that there is no need for issuing the insurance policy in the name of the complainant because he will mention in the insurance policy that the vehicle in question is being used by the complainant being son and LR of Late Sh. Anoop Singh Minhas. This story is based on the version of the agent of the OP. Moreover, if the agent stated that there is no need to get issue insurance policy in the name of complainant after the death of insured Anoop Singh Minhas, then it is fundamental duty of the complainant to know the law of the land and make aware himself regarding rule and regulation of the insurance policy, but for the best known reason, the complainant never informed to the OPs or to the agent of the OPs in regard to death of his father Sh. Anoop Singh Minhas and further never make a request to transfer the said insurance policy in his name if did so, then the complainant has to bring on the file some documentary evidence i.e. in the shape of letters, but simply propounding such like story seems to be not a true one because it is propounded by the complainant just to get insurance claim from the OPs because if the complainant himself failed to get transfer the vehicle in his own name or in the name of any other family member, after the death of original owner Sh. Anoop Singh Minhas, then how the complainant can shift the liability upon the OP rather the complainant himself at fault and negligent for not transfer the vehicle in his name and if vehicle is transferred in his name or in the name of any LR of deceased Anoop Singh Minhas, then the insurance company as well as its agent will bound to issue insurance policy in the name of registered owner, if the complainant intentionally and willfully did not get transfer the vehicle in the name of any LR or deceased Anoop Singh Minhas, then how the agent can assess that Anoop Singh Minhas has died, the agent has to analyze the ownership of the vehicle from registration certificate, which still stands in the name of Anoop Singh Minhas. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the insurance contract in the name of dead person i.e. Anoop Singh Minhas being a nullity in the eyes of law and as such, OPs not bound to make the insurance claim to the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered due to alleged accident of the insured vehicle. In support of above observation, we like to take an opportunity to refer a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in Revision Petition No.3387 of 2016 (against the order dated 04.08.2016 in Appeal No.157 of 2016 of State Commission, Chhattisgarh), titled as “Nirasha Sinha Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.”, decided on 18.08.2017.

10. The facts of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission is almost identical to the facts of the case in hand and accordingly, by applying the aforesaid judgment, we reached to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant fails and therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

03.04.2019 Member President