United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Neetu Kanwar

The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 12.11.2013 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that:

"..... In the matter of 2009 RAR 113 (Supreme Court of India) Santaro Devi and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set principle that after charging premium and beside being aware about death of deceased and non transfer of ownership of vehicle in the name of legal heir of deceased, if the policy is renewed then insurance company can not say that it is not responsible for payment of third party claim. Acceptance by way of silence is applicable. As the insurance company being aware about death of in registered owner of vehicle has renewed the policy of vehicle hence the insurance company is bound to the principle of acceptance by way of silence. Hence insurance company is liable for payment of compensation."

(para 5 of the Order)

The opposite party appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 19.10.2016 dismissed the appeal with modification in the Order of the District Forum, inter alia holding that:

"6. The alleged vehicle was insured with the opposite party and renewal of the policy fell due on 30.01.2010 and on that date it automatically renewed the policy in the name of complainant's husband. It is revealed that the renewal form does not bear any signatures of the proposer, the agent renewed the policy without ascertaining whether insurer is alive or not, without ascertaining any fact and without obtaining signatures on the renewal form. It seems that policy was renewed without contacting even the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Dharam Singh. The premium was received by the company is not denied. In view of these circumstances, now the company cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that complainant has no insurable interest and the policy was issued in the name of a dead person.

We are of the view that no enquiry was made from the complainant at the time of renewal and only premium was received. The ld. counsel for the complainant has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2009 RAR 113 (SC) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santro Devi and Ors. The ld. counsel for the company has submitted that facts in this case were different and are not helpful in the present controversy. He submits that premium in that case was paid by the bank and no evidence was led that insurance company had knowledge that owner has expired. We feel that manner in which renewal was done it was on the company to prove that complainant had taken the policy in the name of her dead husband. We reject the contention of the ld. counsel for the company. The repudiation of the claim was not justified.

Therefore the appeal No.1289/2013 deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.

We have perused the report of the Surveyor. The Surveyor has assessed Rs.1,97,377.50 towards the cost of the parts to be replaced after providing for the depreciation and Rs.43009.70 was assessed towards labour charges. The complainant is entitled to receive the amount assessed by the Surveyor. The judgment of the ld. DCF is modified and insurance company is ordered to pay Rs.2,40,387.20 to the complainant. The ld. DCF has also not awarded amount for mental agony to the complainant.

We order that company shall pay Rs.30,000/- for mental agony to the complainant. Rest of the order is maintained. The appeal No.36/2014 is allowed."

(Para 6 to 10 of the Order)

This revision has been filed by the opposite party under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 19.10.2016 of the State Commission.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below:

".....to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

The State Commission's Order dated 19.10.2016 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with some modifications with the District Forum. The reasons for modifying the Order of the District Forum are well-articulated. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the State Commission, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.

There is no reason evident to interfere with the findings of the State Commission.

The revision petition is dismissed.