ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

            This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2 challenging the impugned Order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No.740/2011. Vide the said Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North West District), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No. 828/07.

2.        The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1/Complainant’s father, Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh, was the registered owner of the truck bearing No. HR-38-J-2818 and had taken an Insurance Policy bearing No. 31/2005/02960 for his truck for a period from 08.09.2004 to 07.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Policy holder, Late Sh. Amrajeet Singh, expired on 03.11.2004, and the truck was stolen on the night of 22^nd/23^rd May, 2005. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged in this regard and an intimation regarding theft was also given to the Insurance Company on 26.05.2005. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 18.04.2007 despite submission of all relevant information and documents by the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim and had sought relief of the insured value of Rs.7,00,000/- along with other ancillary reliefs.

3.    The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was submitted that the Complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It was contended by the Opposite Party No. 2 that as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in the event of death of the sole insured, the Policy does not lapse immediately but remains valid for a period of three months from the date of death of insured or until expiry of Policy (whichever is earlier) and during such period, the Legal Heirs of the Insured may apply for the transfer of Policy to their name or obtain a new Policy. And in the present case, the Policy of Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh was not transferred after his death on 03.11.2004 and subsequently the vehicle was stolen on 22.05.2005. It is further submitted that the Complainant got the vehicle transferred in his name on 18.05.2006 i.e., after the theft which is violation of condition No.10 of the Insurance Policy. It was further contended that there is no insurable right of the Complainant in the vehicle in question since the insurance of the vehicle had already expired after three months from the date of death of the Insured i.e. on 03.02.2005. It was further submitted that at the time of theft of the vehicle, the Policy was not in force and the same had already lapsed as per the terms of the Policy and the Opposite Party had rightly repudiated the claim. Hence, the Opposite Party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.   The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 17.11.2011 dismissed the complaint of the Complainant and observed that:

“As is clear from a bare reading of clause 10 (ibid), on the death of the assured, the policy would remain in operation for a period of 3 months to allow the LRs of the deceased to get it transferred in their names or purchase a new policy. In the case in hand the assured had expired on 03.11.2004 which means the policy had lapsed on 03.02.2005 i.e. on the expiry of 3 months.  It is not disputed that the complainant or for the matter any other Lr of the deceased had not got the policy transferred in their names nor had they purchased another policy. It therefore, follows that there was no insurance policy in operation at the time the truck in question was stolen. The claims lodged by the complainant was, therefore, rightly repudiated by the insurance company. The complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in