DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 20/05/2022
CC/86/2022
Sr. Pushpa,
Provincial Superior,
CHF Marian Provincialate,
Mary Land, Muttikulangara,
Pudupariyaram, Palakkad – 678 594 - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. Benny Job & Sheeba Benny)
Vs
- The Manager,
National Insurance Company,
Opp. Ghani Honda,
Fort Maidan, Palakkad – 678 001
- Rajitha K.R.,
Asst. Manager, Employee No.72098
National Insurance Company,
Opp. Ghani Honda,
Fort Maidan, Palakkad – 678 001 - Opposite parties
(O.P.s by Adv. M. Krishnadas)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Crux of complaint pleadings is that one deceased Sr. Anne Maria was the owner of a Mahindra XYLO Car for and on behalf of the Provincial House. The vehicle was insured in the name of the deceased. She died on 30/7/2021. The present complainant, Sr. Pushpa, is the successor of Late Sr. Anne Maria. The car met with an accident on 30/1/2022. The opposite parties refused to honour the claim for indemnification of the expenses incurred in repairing the vehicle on the ground there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the O.P.s. The vehicle was purchased for purposes of the house and not the person in whose name the policy was insured. The complainant is entitled to the claim. This complaint is filed raising claim for the amounts expended.
- OP filed the version admitting the plaint contentions. Even though they had raised a number of objections to the complaint like non-joinder of necessary parties and capacity of the complainant to represent the Provincialate, their main contention was that the claim was repudiated since the name of the insured had not been changed even after 6 months after the death of the earlier insured, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the complainant is authorized to represent the institution and to represent the deceased and Sr. Anne Maria?
- Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
- Whether the vehicle in question was purchased by the deceased Provincial in her personal capacity or on behalf of the institution?
- Whether the insurance policy was taken by the deceased in her personal capacity or on behalf of the institution?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in refusing the claim?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A9. Marking of Ext.A4 is objected to on the ground it is a photocopy. Ext.A5 is objected to as it is a part of a document. Objection to marking Ext.A4 on the ground that it is a photocopy is unsustainable as this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and as the OP has no case that it is forged or concocted. Ext.A5 is the original policy certificate unaccompanied by the terms and condition. Since the entire documents are marked by the opposite party themselves and marking evidence Ext.A5 need not be relied upon.
(ii) Complainant was examined as PW1.
(iii) O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1.
Issue No.5
5. In the fact and circumstances of the case, wherein crux of the dispute revolves around the time period as contemplated under clause 9 of the insurance policy, we are resorting to discussing this matter overlooking issues 1 to 4.
6. Complainant’s case is that late Sr.Anne Maria, Provincial Superior, purchased the vehicle for and on behalf of the Provincial House. After her death, the complainant herein succeeded to the post of Provincial Superior. The vehicle, though, insured in the name of Sr.Anne Maria, is the property of the provincial house. Hence Insurance was in the name of the Provincial House and not Sr. Anne Maria.
To prove their case, the Complainant marked Exts. A1 to A9. Ext.A3 is the certificate of registration. Ext.A3 shows the owner of the vehicle to be one Jancy Joseph. The said name does not appear in any documents. It is also not clarified who the said Jancy Joseph is.
Ext.A5 is the original of policy certificate. Name of Insured is shown as Sr. Anne Maria.
7. OP marked Ext.B1 document. This is a copy of the policy certificate and the Terms and Conditions. Clause 9 under the head ‘Conditions’ in page 4 of Ext.B4 reads as herein below:
“9. In the event of the death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of 3 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 the heir(s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the motor vehicle”.
8. Admittedly, there is a time gap of 6 months between death of the insured and the accident. The policy has not been changed into the name of the present owner.
9. In view of the findings above we hold that there was no valid contract between the complainant and the opposite party on 30/1/2022. Opposite party is not bound to indemnify the complainant.
10. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
11. To nail the case of the complainant, complainant had produced Ext.A9, which is the copy of the bank account of the provincial house. Name of the operating authorities are shown as Provincial Superior and Treasurer. Thus, it is clear that, if the vehicle was purchased for the purposes of the House, it would have been purchased in the name of Provincial Superior and not in the personal capacity of the Provincial Superior.
It would also be pertinent, at this juncture, to reiterate that owner of the vehicle is one Jancy Joseph of Holy Family Convent whereas the insured is Sr. Anne Maria of Marian Provincial House. This variance is not explained.
Issue Nos. 1 & 2
12. In view of the findings in issue Nos. 3,4 and 5, we need not discuss these Issues.
13. Accordingly, this complaint stands dismissed.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 30th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - True copy of death certificate
Ext.A2 – Original declaration of election result dated 20/2/2021
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of RC
Ext.A4 - Screen shot of estimate for vehicle repair
Ext.A5 – Original policy certificate
Ext.A6 – Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 27/4/2022
Ext.A7(a) – Original acknowledgment card
Ext.A7(b) - Original acknowledgment card
Ext.A7 (c) - Original acknowledgment card
Ext.A8 – Original declaration of election result dated 21.1.2018.
Ext.A9 – Photocopy of bank pass book
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 - Copy of policy certificate and terms and conditions.
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Sr. Pushpa (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
