Haryana

Karnal

834/2011

Anita W/o Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Narwal

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.834 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt. 5.12.2011

                                                               Date of decision:27.04.2016

 

Anita wife of Shri Sher Singh, resident of House no.14474-A, housing Board Colony, Sector 6, Karnjal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Parveen Narwal Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that her son Sumit Thakur (since deceased) got insured his TATA Magic vehicle bearing no.HR-45-7656 with the opposite party, vide policy no.OG-11-1206-1812-00000090, which was valid from 21.10.2011 to 20.01.2012. On 20.3.2011, he alongwith his friends was going towards Nagla Chowk, Karnal in the said TATA Magic vehicle. When the vehicle reached near Sugar Mills, Karnal, he lost his control over the vehicle, due to which the vehicle fell down in the canal and as a result of that he died in the said accident. The dead body was recovered on 26.3.2011 near village Babarpur and post mortem was conducted on 27.3.2011 in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. A daily diary report no.30 dated 20.3.2011 was recorded in Police Station Sadar, Karnal regarding the said accident. It has further been pleaded that she lodged claim with the opposite party, but on 19.8.2011 her claim was repudiated on the false ground that Sumit died due to drowning in the river and there is no involvement of vehicle no.HR-45-7656 and as per motor policy, such type of death was not covered. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on such false ground amounted to deficiency in service, which caused her mental pain agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has  no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary jurisdiction.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45-7656 was owned by Sumit Thakur and the same was insured with the opposite party for the period of 21.1.2011 to 20.1.2012.  It has been submitted that as per daily diary report no.30 dated 20.3.2011 and investigation report it was found that insured Mr.Sumit died due to drowning in the river and there was no involvement of vehicle bearing no.HR-45-7656. As per Motor Policy, death/injury on account of use of vehicle was only covered subject terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.P1 and documents Ex. P2 to P4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Sachin Ohri, Assistant Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O10 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                It is admitted fact that TATA Magic vehicle bearing no.HR-45-7656 was insured with the opposite party for the period of 21.1.2011 to 20.1.2012. The said vehicle was owned by Sumit Thakur. As per case of the complainant Sumit Thakur drowned in the canal near Sugar Mills Karnal on 20.3.2011 while he was going alongwith his friends in the said vehicle and lost control of the vehicle, due to which the vehicle fell down in the canal. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that Sumit had not drowned in the canal on account of use of the vehicle. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether Sumit/insured died due to drowning on account of use of  vehicle bearing no.HR-45-7656 or drowned due to some other reason.

7.                The copy of daily diary report Ex.P4 shows that incident was reported to the police on 20.3.2011 itself by Rajan Arora the cousin of one Puneet Arora, who had also died due to drowning in the same incident. According to the version putforth in the daily diary report seven friends including Sumit had gone to the canal for the purpose of taking bath and out of them three persons had drowned while taking bath. The leg of Puneet Arora slipped while taking bath and while rescuing him Monu/Sumit and one other boy also drowned. There was no mention in the daily diary report regarding involvement of  vehicle  no.HR-45-7656 in the said incident. Opposite party got investigated the matter and during investigation statements of complainant and one Gaurav Sood were recorded, the copies of which are Ex.O9 and Ex.O10 and in their statements they did not utter even a single word on the basis of which even an inference may be drawn that Sumit was driving the vehicle and he lost control of the vehicle, due to which the vehicle jumped into the canal and he and his two friends had drowned. The complainant has led no evidence to substantiate the plea putforth by her in the complaint regarding involvement of vehicle  no.HR-45-7656 in drowning of the insured Sumit. Her bald affidavit in this regard cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. Had the vehicle jumped into the canal the same was bound to damage, but no claim regarding damage to the vehicle has been filed. Even there is no evidence that the vehicle was also taken out by the police from the canal.

8.                In view of the afore discussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has altogether failed to prove that  insured Sumit drowned in the canal while driving vehicle no.HR-45-7656. Thus, involvement of vehicle no.HR-45-7656 is not proved. Therefore, as per the policy condition the insurance company was not liable to pay for the death of the owner of the vehicle/insured. Accordingly, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member