TUSHAR MEHTA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 15 of 2013.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that late Sh. Surendra Kumar Mehta, the deceased father of the appellant complainant Sh. Tushar Mehta, was the registered owner of Hyundai Santro car (Model 2006) bearing registration No. UA07-N-6885 (wrongly mentioned as UA07-A-6885 in the consumer complaint). During his lifetime, the father of the complainant had got the said vehicle insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. The father of the complainant had expired on 04.10.2009. For purchase of the vehicle, loan was taken from Canara Bank, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. After the death of his father, the complainant came to know about the expiry of the insurance policy obtained by his deceased father from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Thereafter, the complainant got the said vehicle insured with the opposite party The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 09.09.2010 to 08.09.2011. It was alleged that as per the advice of the insurance company, the vehicle was got insured by the complainant in his father's name, who used to be the registered owner of the vehicle. The representative of the insurance company had told the complainant that till the registration certificate of the vehicle is transferred in complainant's name, the insurance policy shall be issued in his father's name. On 13.11.2010, the insured vehicle met with an accident with a bus, as a result whereof, the vehicle got completely damaged. The repair expenses of the vehicle were assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/-, whereas the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 1,75,000/-. The complainant preferred claim with the insurance company and submitted the required documents. The insurance company, through letter dated 07.12.2011 addressed to the deceased father of the complainant, directed him to submit the discharge voucher duly signed by him and also to comply certain formalities, for settlement of the claim. Since the father of the complainant had expired on 04.10.2009 and, as such, he was informed by the insurance company that the claim would be payable only to the registered owner of the vehicle. The complainant got the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name on 23.12.2011 and submitted the succession certificate and discharge voucher etc. with the insurance company through his letter dated 07.02.2012. The insurance company, however, per their letter dated 05.06.2012, turned down the claim on the ground that Sh. Surendra Kumar Mehta had already expired about a year before taking the insurance policy in question and the insurance policy can not be taken in the name of a dead person and since there has been non-disclosure of material facts and, as such, the contract of the insurance stands vitiate. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun on 17.01.2013.

(3.) The respondent insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on intimation regarding the death of Sh. Surendra Kumar Mehta was given to the insurance company prior to the accident in question, whereas the complainant has pretended himself to be Sh. Surendra Kumar Mehta; that no advice was ever given at the end of the insurer; that from the FIR lodged by one Sh. Gulfam, it is evident that a head-on collision took place on 13.11.2010 at about 10:00 a.m. between Santro car No. UA07-N-6886 and private bus bearing registration No. HP-17-8786; that for the first time, on 13.12.2010, without mentioning the registration number of the vehicle, an intimation regarding the accident in question was given by the complainant through e-mail; that till 07.12.2011, the complainant did not disclose about the death of his father; that the vehicle released bear registration No. UA07-N-6886; that the complainant has misrepresented before the insurance company at the time of taking the insurance policy and also during process of the claim; that in the claim form too, the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned as UA07-N-6886 and estimate of repairs was got prepared for the said vehicle; that on perusal of the papers submitted by the complainant, it transpired that the insurance of the vehicle was obtained in the name of a dead person; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company; that the claim has rightly been repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.