BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. Complaint No. 376 of 2016 Date of instt. 09.12.2016 Date of decision 02.1.2018 Smt. Sonia Devi wife of late Shri Mahinder Singh resident of village Biana, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. ??..Complainant. Versus 1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, through its Authorized Signatory, 4th & 5th floor, FCO Tower, Plot no.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon 12200. 2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO 19-20, HAFED Building, Sector-12, Karnal. ..?Opposite Parties. Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Before Sh. Jagmal Singh??.President. Sh.Anil Sharma??.Member. Present: Shri Ram Mehar Advocate for the complainant. Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite parties. (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT) ORDER: This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that her son namely Sumit Kumar purchased an insurance policy bearing no.89027943 dated 6.12.2015 for his Maruti Swift Desire Car bearing no.HR-75A-8080. The policy valid upto 5.12.2016 midnight. The policy was a package policy. The car was financed by Magma Fincrop Ltd. Unfortunately, her son was expired on 16.1.2016. She paid the dues of the finance company and applied for NOC for the abovesaid car and the same was received by her and applied for termination of Agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation and applied for the transfer of the vehicle in her name and the same was transferred in the name of complainant on 8.6.2016. Thereafter, she applied for transfer of the insurance in her name and paid the requisite fees for the transfer of insurance policy in her name. Unfortunately, her other son namely Amit Kumar was driving the car in question met with an accident on 7.6.2016 and expired due to the serious and grievous injuries in the accident and the car was also fully damaged. The intimation was given to the insurance company through the authorized agency and filed claim regarding the 100% loss to the insured car vide MI Claim no.1-60RCH4P. She visited the office of OPs so many times and requested to release the claim of the damaged car, but OPs did not pay any to her request. Then she served a legal notice dated 15.10.206 through her counsel upon the OPs but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint. 2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the claim of the complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law and further not fall under the purview of policy. The claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.12.2016 on the ground that ?On careful perusal of the report of surveyor and other documents on record, it is observed that the insured has died in the month of January, 2016 and subsequently the policy and Registration Certificate is not transferred/endorsed to nominee within three months of the death of insured; hence the claim is not payable. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 11.5.2017. 4. On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan Ex.O1, affidavit of Mahesh Kalra Surveyor Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O3 and Ex.O4 and closed the evidence on 6.1.2017. 5. We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. 6. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the son of complainant namely Sumit Kumar was the owner of car make Maruti Swift Desire Car bearing no.HR-75A-8080, which was insured with the OPs, vide policy no.89027943 dated 6.12.2015 valid upto 5.12.2016. The son of complainant namely Sumit Kumar died on 16.1.2016.The said car was taken on loan vide agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation. The dues were paid by the complainant and applied for NOC and after NOC the same was transferred in the name of complainant on 8.6.2016. 7. According to the complainant the said car was met with an accident on 7.6.2016 this driven by the other son of complainant namely Amit Kumar, who expired due to serious and grievous injury in the said accident and the car was also fully damaged. The intimation was given to the OPs and claim was filed vide claim no. 1-60RCH4P. The complainant has served a legal notice on 5.10.2016. the OPs have now not decided the claim of the complainant till now and the present complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer that the OPs be directed to settle the claim and pay the amount of Rs.4,68,926/- the insured value of the damaged car besides the compensation and litigation charges. 8. The OPs have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.12.2016 on the ground that the insured had died in the month of January, 2016 and subsequently policy and Registration Certificate was not transferred/endorsed to nominee within three month of the death of the insured. Therefore, the claim is not payable. The claim is also not payable as per condition no.9 of the Indian Motor Tariff which runs as under:- ?As per condition no.9 of the Indian Motor Tariff: ?In the event of death of the sole insured, this policy will not immediately lapse but will remain valid for a period of three months from the date of the death of insured or until the expiry of this policy (whichever is earlier). During the said period, legal heir(s) of the insured to whom the custody and use of Motor Vehicles passes may apply to have this policy transferred to the name (s) of the heir (s) or obtain a new insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle.? 9. From the record on the file, it is clear that the car in question was owned by Sumit the son of complainant who died on 16.1.2016. The said car was under Hire Purchase Agreement and the complainant had paid the dues of the Financed Company and thereafter applied for NOC. After obtaining the same the complainant applied for transferred of vehicle in her name which was transferred on 8.6.2016. In these circumstances, the delay in getting transfer ownership in the name of complainant has been properly explained. 10. There is no dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 7.6.2016 and the OP appointed Shri Mahesh Kalra Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor as the surveyor in the accident in question. The surveyor submitted his report dated 13.7.2016, the copy of which is Ex.O4. The surveyor assessed the liability on total loss basis of Rs.4,68,926/- as well as the liability on net of salvage basis of Rs.2,70,000/-. Learned counsel for complainant stated at the time of arguments that the salvage of the car be also handed over to the OPs. The learned counsel make request that the amount of the car on the total loss basis be awarded. The surveyor has already assess the liability on total loss basis to the tune of Rs.4,68,926/-. 11. The OPs have repudiated the claim only on the ground that the complainant has not transferred the vehicle in her name within three months of the death insured as the insured had died in the month of January, 2016. In this regard the complainant has produced the authorities cited in 2014(3)PLR page 813 (SC) titled as Mallamma (Dead ) By LRs Versus National insurance Co. Ltd. and others wherein it is held that whenever a vehicle is transferred from one person to another the benefit of insurance policy shall also be transferred to the new owner and 2015(4) PLR page 154 (P&H) titled as Om Parkash through LRs Versus Ravinder Kumar and others wherein it is held that vehicle transferred-Intimation of transfer of the vehicle not given to the Insurance Company-The Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability to pay the amount of compensation on account of transfer of the vehicle. As already stated above the delay for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant has been explained by the complainant. So, keeping in view the abovesaid authorities when the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant, the benefit of insurance policy shall be transferred in her name. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant hence the OPs are deficient. 13. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,68,926/- the assessed value of the vehicle by the surveyor to the complainant. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced Dated:02.01.2018 President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal. (Anil Sharma) Member