SARLA JAIN vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THESE Revision Petitions arise out of common order of State Commission, hence, decided by common order.

THESE Revision Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 126, 127, 128 and 129 of 2013 - Smt. Sarla Jain Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Smt. Nirmala Jain VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shri Jinesh Jain & Anr. VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Rajshree Jain VS. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant ''s husband/ son were travelling in Tavera No. CG 07 - M 9019 on 23.10.2009 which met with an accident due to negligence of truck driver and five persons died. It was further submitted that vehicle was registered in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari and vehicle was covered by Comprehensive Insurance Policy issued by Opposite Party/Respondent from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010 and premium of Rs. 50/ - per head for 9 unnamed passengers giving coverage of Rs. 1.00 lakh to each was also given by Opposite Party. After accident, Complainants preferred claim before Opposite Party but Opposite Party repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaints and submitted that proposal for Insurance of aforesaid vehicle was given to the Opposite Party with registration certificate in which name of the owner was given as Dilip Kumar Kothari and on that basis insurance policy was issued. After accident, on investigation, it was found that prior to purchase of vehicle and issuance of insurance policy, Dilip Kumar Kothari had already died on 30.4.2007 and in such circumstances, issued policy was void as it was an agreement with dead person. It was, further, submitted that after accident, affidavit by Deepak Kumar Kothari was given to RTO on 28.10.2009 in which it was submitted that vehicle has mistakenly been registered in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari instead of Deepak Kumar Kothari, Karta HUF, and RTO believing on the affidavit corrected entries in the registration certificate. On receiving such information, Opposite Party cancelled the insurance policy which was void -ab -initio and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaints. Appeal filed by Complainants were dismissed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which these Revision Petitions have been filed. Heard Learned Counsel for Petitioners and perused the record. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that as Insurance policy was recalled by Respondent after the accident, Petitioners are entitled to get benefits of insurance coverage and Learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and Learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaints, hence, Revision Petitions be admitted.

IT is not disputed that at the time of taking the insurance policy, vehicle was registered in the name of Dilip Kumar Kothari. It is also not disputed that Dilip Kumar Kothari died on 30.4.2007 whereas insurance policy was obtained on 31.3.2009 meaning thereby -insurance policy was obtained in the name of a dead person. As policy -n had been taken in the name of dead person, Policy was void - ab -initio and no liability can be fastened on the Respondents on the basis of policy void - ab -initio.

LEARNED Counsel for Respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court in 2012 (II) D.M.P. 145 (S.C.) - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Laxmamma and Others; in which it was held that Insurance Co. is liable unless policy of insurance is cancelled by authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation reaches the insured before the accident. In this case, premium cheque was dis -honoured and Insurance Co. recalled Insurance policy after accident which was not held proper by the Hon ''ble Apex Court. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the case in hand, the Insurance Policy was obtained in the name of dead person which was void - ab -initio.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that Learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint and order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with Law which does not call for any interference and Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, Revision Petitions filed by the Petitioners are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.