SARLA JAIN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions arise out of common order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order.

(2.) These Revision Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 126, 127, 128 & 129 of 2013- Smt. Sarla Jain Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Smt. Nirmala Jain VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shri Jinesh Jain & Anr. VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Rajshree Jain VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant's husband/ son were travelling in Tavera No. CG 07- M 9019 on 23.10.2009 which met with an accident due to negligence of truck driver and five persons died. It was further submitted that vehicle was registered in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari and vehicle was covered by Comprehensive Insurance Policy issued by Opposite Party/Respondent from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010 and premium of Rs. 50/- per head for 9 unnamed passengers giving coverage of Rs. 1.00 lakh to each was also given by Opposite Party. After accident, Complainants preferred claim before Opposite Party but Opposite Party repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaints and submitted that proposal for Insurance of aforesaid vehicle was given to the Opposite Party with registration certificate in which name of the owner was given as Dilip Kumar Kothari and on that basis insurance policy was issued. After accident, on investigation, it was found that prior to purchase of vehicle and issuance of insurance policy, Dilip Kumar Kothari had already died on 30.4.2007 and in such circumstances, issued policy was void as it was an agreement with dead person. It was, further, submitted that after accident, affidavit by Deepak Kumar Kothari was given to RTO on 28.10.2009 in which it was submitted that vehicle has mistakenly been registered in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari instead of Deepak Kumar Kothari, Karta HUF, and RTO believing on the affidavit corrected entries in the registration certificate. On receiving such information, Opposite Party cancelled the insurance policy which