Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
National Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager —Petitioner
versus
Smt. Princy Roy —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3740 of 2012
(From the order dated 04.07.2012 of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in First Appeal no. 26 of 2010)
Decided on 11.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. N M Varghese, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is for Insurance Company to satisfy itself that all requirements are met before transferring/ renewing policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Transfer of policy—Repudiation of accidental death claim—Complaint allowed by Fora below—Certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of ownership of a motor vehicle but only because a person’s name is shown on registration certificate that will not make him an owner—Had petitioner insisted for registration certificate, it would have come to their notice that on date of filing proposal form deceased was not registered owner of vehicle and they would have advised and guided him accordingly regarding requirements before policy could be issued in his favour—It was for petitioner to satisfy itself that all requirements were met before transferring/ renewing policy—Benefit of insurance policy cannot be denied to insured on specious grounds and due to the omission on part of petitioner in ensuring adherence to requirements before issuing policy—Order of State Commission does not call for any interference. (Paras 28 and 29)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition No.3740 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 4th July 2012 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 26 of 2010.
2. The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that her husband during his life time on 25th May 2006 bought a Maruti Omni Van from one Mr M Shivanandan, a resident of Bicholim, Goa by making part payment of Rs.50,000/- out of a total consideration of Rs.90,000/-, the said vehicle bearing registration no. GA 01 J 1166 was registered with the office of the Assistant Director of Transport at Bicholim.
3. The respondent states that upon receipt of the part consideration, the said Mr Shivanandan allowed the respondent’s husband to renew/ transfer the insurance of the said vehicle in his name, after compliance of the requisite formalities as the said vehicle came to be insured by the petitioner/ opposite party in the name of respondent’s husband.
4. The respondent states that in terms of the said insurance policy inter alia was providing personal cover to the “owner-driver” of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakh, compulsory payable, in case of “death of owner-driver” in a mishap and had received a sum of Rs.625/- under the head “compulsory PA to owner – Driver amount Rs.2,00,000 WC to employee”.
5. The respondent states that on receipt of the part consideration on 25th May 2006 for the said vehicle, the original owner – Mr M Shivanandan had signed the requisite documents to be produced before the petitioner for transfer/ renewal of the said insurance policy in the name of respondent’s husband and on receipt of balance consideration which came to be paid on 9th March 2007, the said Mr Shivanandan signed the forms 29 and 30 for transfer of ownership of the said vehicle, for submitting it in the office of the Assistant Director of Transport, Bicholim for obtaining NOC as the respondent’s husband was residing within the limits of Ponda Taluka.
6. Pursuant to the signing of the forms 29 and 30, late Roy Baby immediately visited the office of the Assistant Director of Transport, Bicholim for obtaining NOC and handed over the said forms to the concerned official at the inward section, however, the concerned official refused to accept the said forms and informed Late Roy Baby to call the original owner – M Shivanandan, who was required to sign the forms before the concerned authority and to comply with the further formalities of transfer of ownership of the said vehicle, at that time the said M Shivanandan was in Kerala at his native place and as such the said vehicle remained to be transferred in the name of the respondent’s husband in the records of the RTO.
7. Respondent’s husband Late Roy Baby was a civil contractor by profession. On 27th April 2007, while returning home in the said vehicle, respondent’s husband met with accident and died on the spot.
8. The respondent states that pursuant to the issuance of the said form, respondent lodged her claim in terms of the said insurance policy with the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh. The original copy of the said insurance policy no. 271202/ 31/ 06/ 6100001257 dated 6th June 2006 was in possession and power of the petitioner as the same was submitted along with the application for claim on 26th June 2007.
9. The respondent also states that after the expiry of the said insurance policy period i.e., 7th June 2006 to 6th June 2007 standing in the name of her husband, the same was transferred and renewed in the name of the respondent for the period 7th June 2007 to 6th June 2008 on receipt of premium by the petitioner.
10. The respondent states that towards the repairs of the said vehicle, job estimate card dated 7th June 2007 was prepared by the Dhavalikar Automobiles, Ponda, authorized dealer for the “Maruti” vehicles. In terms of the said estimated report the damage to the said vehicle was estimated to the tune of Rs.1,44,833.54
