Per Justice G.D.Sharma 1. Order dated 25-3-2008, passed by the Learned Divisional Forum Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Forum) has been taken in appeal whereby the complaint of respondent no-1 was allowed and appellant herein was directed to make payment of Rs 64500/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization .The brief facts of the case are that Maruti Car bearing registration No-JK02S-8087 had been insured with the appellant vide policy No 9597861. The policy was effective from 12-1-2006 to 11-1-2007 and the risk insured was to the tune of Rs 1,20,000/-. On 19-7-2006, when the above said insurance policy was in currency accident of the said insured Maruti car took place near the town of Udhampur and damage was caused. The car was taken to the work shop of respondent no-2 for assessing the loss and affecting the requisite repairs as the appellant had "tie up insurance business" with him. Respondent -2 appointed Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 64,500/- "net of salvage basis". The plea taken by the appellant before the Learned Divisional Forum was that the Insured maruti Car had been initially insured by Mr. Chandu Ram father of respondent no 1 who died on 13-12-2004. That thereafter, without disclosing the fact of his death respondent no 1 got twice insurance policies issued in favour of Chandu Ram by making the payments of the premiums on his name through himself. This was a concealment of material fact having the effect of nullifying the Insurance Policy but the Learned Divisional Forum took no notice of it. That there was no evidence on the record to establish the fact that respondent-1 was the sole legal heir of the deceased Chandu Ram. 2. Heard the arguments. 3. Mr. Baldev Singh Advocate in his arguments has reiterated the above stated grounds and further contended this it is not borne out from the evidence that respondent -1 had informed respondent-2 about the death of insured Chandu Ram. His contention is false because he has failed to disclose the particulars to whom such information was laid by him and at what point of time The ownership of the Insured Car was in the name of deceased Chandu Ram because Registration certificate continued in his name. His contention is false because he has failed to disclose the particulars to whom such information was laid by him and at what point of time The ownership of the Insured Car was in the name of deceased Chandu Ram because Registration certificate continued in his name. Under Cfause (b) sub clause (6) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance policy had become void because it was obtained by non-disclosure of a material fact. Not only that, the policy was obtained in violation of the direction given in G.R. 17 of the guidelines issued by the concerned authorities. While concluding his arguments, he submitted that no reliance could be placed in the ratio decidendi of the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Asha Wasuri CIMA No- 15/98 decided on 29-4-99 by the Hon"ble High Court of J&K . In that case a Will had been executed in favour of the claimant whereas, no testamentary disposition had been made in this case in favour of respondent no 1. 4. In rebuttal, Mr. Dheeraj Nanda advocate has contended that no question of transfer of Insurance policy could arise in this case as respondent -1 at two consecutive occasions had obtained Insurance policies from respondent no 2 by paying the required premiums in respect of the insured car in question. On every time, he had been disclosing to respondent no 2 that his father Chandu Ram had died. That Respondent no 1 being the son of Chandu Ram is his legal heir. That in terms of the Insurance Policy. Maruti car in question had been insured and not deceased Chandu Ram. Sec 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. The loss caused to the Insured Car had been assessed by the surveyor who was duly appointed by respondent no 2 being the authorized agent of the appellant. That the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2009) SCCR 505 applies to the facts of the present case. We have considered the respective -contentions of the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The Insurance Policy in question has been issued in the name of the deceased father of respondent no 1 and his name continues in the certificate of Registration. We have considered the respective -contentions of the Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The Insurance Policy in question has been issued in the name of the deceased father of respondent no 1 and his name continues in the certificate of Registration. It cannot be said that contract of Insurance itself is void unless it is shown that in obtaining the said contract a fraud had been practiced. No particulars of alleged fraud have been pleaded. The contract of Insurance is in respect of coverage of risk of the Maruti Car in question and not in favour of the person of respondent no 1 or his deceased father. In the case of such a nature, the doctrine of "acceptance sule silentio" is applicable. 5. The law cited at the bar by the Counsel of respondent no 1 (2009) SCCR 505 has application in all fours to the facts and circumstances of the case. The arguments advanced by the Counsel of the appellant are not legally tenable. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, it is held that the impugned order is neither illegal nor improper. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rupees three thousand and consigned to records. The record of the Forum be returned at once.