PRAVINBHAI P.PATEL vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS appeal arises from order dated 5th August, 1999 rendered by the learned Vadodara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 317/1992 holding that the complaint had abated on account of the death of the complainant.

WHEN this appeal came up for hearing no one remained present for the appellants. Learned Advocate for the respondent is present. The application that was preferred by the heirs of the complainant being the appellants herein would clearly indicate that they did not know about the filing of the complaint and that their predecessor (appellant No. 1''s deceased husband and appellant Nos. 2 and 3''s father) suffered from cancer and died during the pendency of the complaint. It was only upon intimation received by them from the friend of the deceased insured that they immediately approached the learned Forum for joining them as the heirs of the deceased complainant. They have also set out the circumstances in the application.

In our considered opinion learned Forum has failed to appreciate the factual aspect of the application. Learned Forum has applied Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act disposing of the complaint as having abated. As a matter of fact under Consumer Protection Act there is no provision which would indicate abatement of the complaint upon death of the complainant where right in the complaint survives to the heirs. We, therefore, find that the learned Forum has failed to consider the circumstances set out by the heirs for setting aside the abatement and joining them as parties to the complaint.

ON merits we have gone through the Xerox copy of the policy of insurance taken by the deceased complainant from the opponent Insurance Company. Learned Advocate for the opponent Insurance Company has shown the said Xerox copy of the policy of insurance to this Commission. That would clearly indicate that the complainant got the insurance of the vehicle in question not only for third party risk but also for loss of or damage to the vehicle. If that is so, since the vehicle was stolen as set out in the complaint it was for the opponent Insurance Company to process the claim which was lodged by the deceased complainant and that having not been done the complainant was required to move the learned Forum with the complaint in question. The only defence which the opponent Insurance Company would raise is that the theft of the vehicle was in close proximity with the date of taking of insurance and that raised suspicion with regard to the incident vis-a-vis the date of taking policy of insurance. The opponent Insurance Company would also submit that the vehicle in question was in non-use. However, we do not have any material which would go to indicate that there was any default on the part of the deceased insured. It would be for the opponent Insurance Company to process the claim and find out if there is any legal and valid cause for repudiation of the claim. Merely on suspicion, the opponent Insurance Company cannot disown the liability.

IT would be, therefore, just and proper to issue direction to the opponent Insurance Company for processing the claim, further investigating the matter with regard to the facts and intimate the complainants, now the heirs of the deceased complainant, about fate of claim of the deceased insured with regard to the vehicle in question. We, therefore, pass following order : Impugned order dated 5th August, 1999 rendered by the learned Vadodara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 317/1992 is hereby set aside. The heirs of the deceased complainant, now the appellants, are treated to have been joined as party complainants in the original complaint. The opponent Insurance Company is directed to process the claim of deceased insured with regard to the vehicle in question (two-wheeler in question), investigate the matter of theft appropriately and intimate the complainants about fate of the claim lodged by the deceased complainant with the opponent Insurance Company with regard to vehicle in question. The opponent shall undertake and complete the whole exercise as stated, within 3 months from today and give written intimation to the complainants upon conclusion of action so taken by the opponent Insurance Company. It will then open to the complainants to take up the matter by filing fresh complaint if the decision of the opponent is against them. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.