Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Surjit Singh, President, Prem Chauhan, Vijay Pal Khachi, Members.
Dev Raj — Appellant
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited — Respondent
First Appeal No. 210 of 2015
Decided on : 29-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate
The central legal principle established in the judgment is that in certain circumstances, the validity of an insurance contract may be upheld despite technical deficiencies, if the true nature of the contract reflects an agreement between the insured party and the insurance company.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Policy - Validity of Contract
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking indemnification for an insurance claim that was repudiated by the respondent. The claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of purchasing the insurance policy, the registered owner of the vehicle was deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although technically the insurance policy may not be a valid document due to the registered owner being deceased at the time of purchase, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the contract of insurance was actually between the appellant and the insurance company.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the insurance contract due to the registered owner being deceased at the time of purchase.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that despite the formalization of the insurance policy in the name of the deceased registered owner, the contract was actually between the appellant and the insurance company, as suggested by the company's functionaries.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was allowed. The respondent was directed to pay the appellant the sum insured with interest and litigation expenses.
ORDER :
Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.(Oral)
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.07.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed, with the finding that at the time, when insurance policy was purchased in respect of the vehicle, for which own damage claim has been repudiated, owner of the said vehicle was dead.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of appeal are as follows. Late Shri Tashi Tandup, father of the appellant, owned a tractor, bearing registration No. HP-42-1121. Said Tashi Tandup, died on 23.04.2012. Vehicle was got insured in his name by the present appellant, who is his son on 06.08.2012, for a period of one year. On 24th August, 2012, tractor met with an accident and was washed away by the current of the river, in which it fell after the accident. Claim was lodged with the respondent, who repudiated it on the ground that at the time, when policy was purchased, the person named as insured in the policy, i.e. Tashi Tandup, was dead and, therefore, contract was void, it being with a dead person.
3. Appellant was aggrieved by repudiation of his claim and, therefore, he filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay money equivalent to the sum insured, as it was a case of total loss. Compensation and litigation expenses were also claimed. It was pleaded specifically that fact of death of Tashi Tandup, registered owner of the vehicle, was brought to the notice of the officials of respondent-company, through whom the insurance policy was purchased and they advised the appellant to purchase the policy in the name of the deceased and told that as and when legal-heirs certificate was procured and submitted by them to the insurance company, policy would be transferred in the name of legal-heirs.
4. Complaint was contested by the respondent. It was stated that the person, named as insured in the policy, being dead at the time when policy was purchased, the contract of insurance was void and unenforceable. However, the respondent did not deny the averment made in para 5(ii) of the complaint that the appellant disclosed at the time of purchase of policy that his father, registered owner of the tractor, was dead and functionaries of the respondent told him to purchase the policy in the name of deceased and to get the same transferred later on in the name of legal-heirs by producing the legal-heirs certificate.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint with the finding that the person, named as insured in the policy, being dead at the time of purchase of policy, the contract of insurance is a nullity and hence, the appellant cannot claim indemnification on the strength of the pleaded contract of insurance.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. There cannot be any dispute as regards the legal proposition that there cannot be a valid contract between a dead person and a living person and, therefore, technically speaking the insurance policy, on which the claim of the appellant is based, may not be a valid document. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the contract of insurance though formally in the name of Tashi Tandup deceased and the insurance company, is in fact a contract between the appellant and the respondent-insurance company. Appellant, as already noticed, has pleaded that he had brought it to the notice of the functionaries of respondent that his father, Tashi Tandup, who was registered owner of the tractor, was dead and that it were the functionaries of the respondent, who suggested that the policy be purchased in the name of Tashi Tandup and that later on it could be transferred in his and other legal heirs names, on production of legal-heir certificate. That means, co
