Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Oriental Insurance Company —Respondent
First Appeal No.851 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 31/07/2015 in Complaint No.31/2011 of the State Commission Gujarat)
Decided on 26.10.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Anushree Kapadia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Each renewed policy constitutes a separate contract of insurance.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 41]—Building—Insurance claim—Scope—Insured building having collapsed on account of digging in the adjoining building the insurer was not liable to give any reimbursement for loss to building—Repudiation of claim—Subject-matter of insurance cover, passes from the insured to other persons either by Will or by operation of law—Contract of insurance taken after the death of insured was void ab initio since the same having being obtained in the name of a dead person—Insured already died about 10 years ago—It was the duty of legal heirs of insured to get the insurance policy transferred is their name—No benefit under such a legally void contract of insurance could be admissible to complainants—Impugned order of State Commission upheld. (Paras 4 to 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—A Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy in the name of one Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani was obtained in the year 1985, in respect of the building No. 1456 to 1464/1 HK Bhavan, Reid Road, Ahmedabad where a hotel was being run. The policy was last renewed for a period of one year w.e.f. 26.03.2007. Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani had expired in the year 1997 but despite that the policy continued to be got renewed in the name of the deceased. The building in respect of which the policy had been obtained collapsed on 03.02.2008 and a claim for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy was lodged by the legal representatives of late Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani who claimed to be owners of the building. M/s C.P. Mehta & Co. were appointed as the surveyors to assess the loss but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 06.05.2009 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
“This has reference to your above mentioned Fire Claim.
In this regard, we have taken opinion of our Surveyor M/s CP, Mehta. As per his survey report, the building was collapsed because of construction work being processed at that time in the adjoining bldg. which is much deeper than the insured premises. Thus, the foundation work of the Insured premises weakened and collapsed.
Under the circumstances, the claim is not admissible as per policy terms and conditions which please note.”
2. A consumer complaint was filed by an HuF namely Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani HuF through its Karta Mayuresh Prasad Jani and other coparceners. The complaint was resisted by the insurer which claimed that the complainants had no insurable interest in the policy and the policy had become void, on account of death of Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani in the year 1997. It was also the case of the insurer that the insured building having collapsed on account of digging in the adjoining building the insurer was not liable to give any reimbursement for the loss to the building. It was pointed out that the digging of foundation in the adjoining building was upto 20 feet whereas the foundation in the insured building had been dug up only upto 15 ft.
3. The State Commission having dismissed the consumer complaint the complainants are before this Commission by way of this appeal.
4. The primary issue involved in this appeal is as to whether there was legally valid contact of insurance between the appellant and the respondents on the date the building collapsed. It is an admitted position that initially the insurance policy had been obtained in the name of Mr. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani when he was alive. The case of the complainants is that the policy was obtained by Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani on behalf of HuF, he being the karta of HuF. However, there is no indication in the policy which would show that the insurance cover was taken by an HuF representd by late Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani and was not taken by the deceased in his individual capacity. Late Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani was a businessman and owned the building in which the hotel was being run. If he was also the karta of a HuF as is claimed by the complainants/appellants he would be knowing the distinction between an individual and an HuF. Had Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani intended to take an insurance cover on behalf of an HuF, he would have stated so in the proposal submitted for the first time and in that case the policy would have been issued in the name of the HuF and not in the individual name of late Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani. Moreover, there is no evidence of the insurance premium having been paid from the funds of the HuF, so long as Mr. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani was alive.
5. Had the insurance policy been obtained on behalf of an HuF, the person who became karta of HuF on the death of Sh. Gangaprasad Hariprasad Jani would have informed the insurer accordingly and would have requested the insurer either to issue the policy in the name of
