Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Renukansal and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018WRIC/25873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed the writ petition challenging the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat in a vehicle insurance claim. The High Court upheld the award directing the insurer to indemnify the heirs, holding that the policy did not automatically lapse upon the insured's death and the insurer was obligated to inform heirs about transfer formalities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Award of Permanent Lok Adalat upholding the insurers liability is affirmed.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Renukansal and… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25873 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Renukansal And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subash Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The present petition is directed against the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 19.4.2018,, whereby the claim petition filed by the heirs of the insured, for the loss of vehicle, has been allowed and the Insurance Company has been directed to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured.

¶6

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company admits that the vehicle in question was insured and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of theft of vehicle. Contesting the claim of the applicants, he, however, submits that the insured had died on 5.8.2013. The vehicle was stolen on 10.3.2014 much after the death of the insurer. The claim before the Insurance Company was moved on 20.3.2014 with the forged signature of the insured.

¶7

As per Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was obligatory upon the heirs of the insured to intimate about the death of insured and to get the policy transferred in their names. At no point of time, any intimation was given by the heirs of the insured about his death.

¶8

In the said circumstances, it is submitted that the insurance policy stood lapsed on the date of theft i.e.on 10.3.2014. The Insurance Company is, therefore, not obliged to indemnify the claim of the heirs of the insured.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat with the categorical observation in the order impugned that there was no automatic lapse of Insurance Company with the death of the insured as the term of policy was surviving on the date of the death and further on the date when the vehicle was stolen. Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been read and interpreted to conclude that there was no automatic lapse of the Insurance policy, rather it would remain valid until its expiry and in case of any intimation by the heirs of the insured, the Insurance Company would be under obligation to transfer the same in the name of the heirs.

¶10

Considering the findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also the fact that the factum of theft of vehicle was intimated to the Insurance Company within a period of ten days, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was obligatory upon the Insurance Company to intimate the heirs about the formalities which they were required to complete for the purpose of transfer of Insurance policy. The claims of the heirs to indemnify the loss suffered by them was required to be processed, thereafter. As no efforts have been made by the Insurance Company to process the claim of the heirs by asking them to complete requisite formalities, the rejection of the application dated 20.3.2014 by the Insurance Company is not justified. The order impugned further records that all efforts have been made by the heirs of the deceased to get the vehicle transferred in their name but the said process took certain time during which the vehicle was stolen.

¶11

Insofar as Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, a careful reading thereof, indicates that in case of death of sole insured, the policy would not automatic lapse, rather it would be transferred in the name of heirs, as soon as the intimation is given. The period of three months from the date of death of insured as provided in Clause 9 would not be taken to mean that the heirs of insured would not be entitled for taking a new policy or getting the policy transferred in their name, in case the said intimation is given after the said period. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the insurance policy had lapsed on account of non-intimation of death of the insured within a period of three months from the date of death is not acceptable, for the said reason. The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, cannot be interfered with.

¶12

The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.8.2018 Pratima

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Renukansal and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Renukansal and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra and Another Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Chandra Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Randhir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Pratap Singh Vs the Commissioner Under Employees Compensation Act / Deputy Labour Commissioner, and 4 Others

Om Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Haji Shahid Akhtar Vs Commissioner/Prescribed Authority and Another