QUORUM

                             President               :         Shri Sanjay Garg

                             Member                :         S. Tarlok Singh              

                                                                   C. C. No.82 of 2011       

Date of Institution : 3.2.2011

                                                                    Date of Decision    : 27.7.2011

Anita Narula (aged 51 years) wife of Anil Kumar son of Shri Amar Lal Narula resident of Street Mohan Lal Kukkar Fazilka District Ferozepur.

                                                                                  .Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No.146-147 Feroze Gandhi Market, 7^th Floor, Near Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana-141001 through its Managing Director.

Opposite party

C.C.No. 82 of 2011                            //2//

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

PRESENT:

For the Complainant                 :        Sh. R. K. sachdeva, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties                 :        Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.

                                       O R D E R

TARLOK SINGH MEMBER

As per averments of the complaint, the complainant Anita Narula has filed the present complaint on the ground that a Tata Indica car No. PB-22 C 0033 owned by M/s Narula Trading Co. through its proprietor Sandeep Kumar Narula  was insured with the opposite party  at its Fazilka Branch Office vide cover note No.BZ0801341354 for consideration of Rs.11337/- for the period from 18.1.2009 to 17.1.2010. On 16.5.2009, Harish Narula son of the complainant who was nephew of the insured Sandeep Kumar Narula was driving the said car and was coming from Ludhiana to Fazilka and the said car met with an accident with 18 wheeler Trolla bwearing No.PB-05M-9610 resulting into the death of Harish Narula. FIR No.75 dated 16.5.2009 U/s 209/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS Dakha District Ludhiana. Harish Narula was driving the said car with the consent of the owner/insured. Claim regarding damages to the car alongwith death claim of

C.C.No. 82 of 2011                            //3//

Harish Narula was lodged with the opposite party who paid the claim of damages of  the vehicle but has declined the claim on account of death of Harish Narula. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite party but to no effect. So, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of complaint and to award Rs.5,00,000/- as claim on account of death of Harish Narula alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on the same from the date of accident. Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith any other suitable relief.

2.       Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma Advocate and filed written statement taking some preliminary objections qua the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vaxacious to the knowledge of the complainant, involvement of a complicated question of law and evidence, the complainant not coming to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed certain material facts from the Forum,  the maintainability of the complaint, estopple etc. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It has been pleaded that the policy No. BZ 0801341345 was not valid for the risk starting before 30.11.2008  and after 15.3.2009 and the policy was not valid on the date of accident as the accident in question alleged have been occurred on             

C.C.No. 82 of 2011                            //4//

16-5-2009. Denying any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.       Parties have led evidence.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and documents placed on file and our findings in respect of  the matter in dispute are as under :-

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since the opposite party has already settled the claim on account of vehicle damages and as such, the claim on account of death of  Harish Narula cannot be rejected on the ground that the policy was not valid on the date of accident. The deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of accident with the consent of the insured/owner and he is required to be treated as owner and therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim the amount of death claim of deceased Harish Narula being covered under the personal accident.

6.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that even if it is admitted that the policy was valid on the date of accident, the risk of the life of deceased Harish Narula was not covered under the policy.

7.       Submissions have been considered.

8.       Admittedly, the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle, so, he

C.C.No. 82 of 2011                            //5//

cannot be treated to have been covered under the Policy. He was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor he falls under the definition of 1^st class legal heirs of the registered owner. So, the deceased in no way can be said to have been covered under the definition of first party and thus, in our opinion, the claim of the complainant is not covered under the personal accident claim.

9.       Keeping in view of our above discussion, we find no merits in the present complaint. So, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced                                                  (Sanjay Garg)

                   27.07.2011                                                   President

                                       (Tarlok Singh)

                                                                                                Member