Smt.Manjinder Kaur and others complainants have filed the present complaint against The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called, the OP)  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which they have prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation alongwith  damages Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. on account of mental harassment, agony, inconvenience, insult alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that Sh.Ajmer Singh was working as a sales man with wine shop and on 8.2.2014 at about 11.30 PM the deceased while coming home by driving motorcycle no.PB-06-P-9426 met with an accident with unknown vehicle and died at the spot and FIR No.08 dated 9.2.2014 was got registered at Police Station Kanwan District Pathankot and the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Pathankot. The registered owner of the motorcycle had got insured his motorcycle with opposite party vide insurance policy No.OG-14-1211-1802-00006586 valid from dated 3.1.2014 to 3.1.2015 with the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of personal accident for owner-driver for which Rs.50/- has been charged from the insured. As per the policy the registered owner has made payment of Rs.50/- towards compulsory P.A. to owner and driver and the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-. They being class-I legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as per the terms of the policy and as such was covered under the definition owner-driver of the vehicle. They had repeatedly requested the opposite party to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- but the opposite party refused to accept the claim.  Hence this complaint.  

3.       On notice, the OP filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable; there is no deficiency in services on the part of the insurance company. No claim has ever been filed by the complainant and so no question of deciding it arises. It is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill their part of obligation as no claim has ever been filed before the opposite party. So the complaint is premature and as per condition of the opposite party to admit the Personal accident cover for Owner-Driver, Driver should be registered owner-driver whose name is appearing in the Policy Schedule and having valid DL on the date of accident, then Claim can be admissible under terms of the policy. But in present case, Deceased is not the Insured and not registered owner of the Insured Vehicle, hence claim is not payable under Policy terms. On merits, it was submitted that as per procedure the proper claim is to be filed only then the Insurance Company will decide the claim. In the present case no such claim alongwith relevant documents has ever been filed and it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligation. The complainant no.1 never requested the opposite party to make the payment. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Smt.Manjinder Kaur complainant has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Navjeet Singh Assistant Manager Legal, Authorized Signatory Ex.OP1 alongwith other document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainants have failed to produce any ‘evidence’ on record of their having filed the ‘death-claim’ with the OP insurers as such there has been no ‘cause of action’ to file the present complaint. Moreover, the OP insurers have stated in its written reply and also in its affidavit Ex.OP1 that the personal insurance cover is available to the owner-driver of the Policy only and he should be the registered owner of the vehicle with his name duly appearing in the related Policy; and as such the complainants are not entitled to the benefits of the Policy in question. In the light of the above, the judgment of the honorable Tamil Naidu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras in Appeal # 275 of 1993 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr vs. Krishnaveni Lakshmanan & Ors ; as cited by the learned counsel of the complainant shall not be of any beneficial assistance to him, either.

7.       Under the circumstances, any further adjudication shall not serve any fruitful purpose and thus we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainants to file the policy ‘claim’ in the desired order along with complete documents etc to the OP insurers who shall decide/settle the same in accordance with the terms of the related policy and convey the decision to the complainants within 45 days of the receipt of the same. The parties shall bear their own expenses, here.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 28,2015.                                                       Member             

*MK*