DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC /10/231 of 30.3.2010 Decided on: 22.11.2010 Madhu Garg aged about 41 years, wife of Late Sh.Mukesh Kumar Garg R/o Police Post Road, Samana, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Ambedkar Chowk, Samana District Patiala through its Branch Manager. 2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Sr.Div.Manager. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. D.P.S.Anand, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Madhu Garg has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- The complainant is widow and legal heir of Late Mr.Mukesh Kumar Garg who got his Maruti Baleno car No.PB-11AC-9958 comprehensively insured with opposite party no.1 vide cover note No.266600 for the period of 7.9.2008 to 6.9.2009 for sum insured Rs.3,01,000/- against premium Rs.5719/-.The insurance covers death risk of paid driver and owner as per Workman Compensation Act and Rs.2 lacs in accidental death and premium has been paid Rs.25/- + Rs.100/- respectively. At the time of insurance the representative of opposite parties inspected the vehicle alongwith all documents including driving licence of the driver Hardip Singh and Mukesh Kumar who used to drive the car. No copy of policy was issued and only cover note was issued for the said insurance. That the car met with an accident on 4.7.2009 on Samana Patiala Road under the jurisdiction of P.S.Sadar, Patiala. In the said accident vehicle was badly damaged, driver Hardip Singh who was driving the car and owner Mukesh Kumar died at the spot. Complainant and her daughter received grievous injuries as they were also sitting on the rear seat of the car. That matter was reported to P.S.Sadar, Patiala and opposite parties were also informed. Post Mortem of driver and owner was also conducted. Opposite parties deputed surveyor and paid own damage claim of car and deposited compensation claim amount of paid driver with workman’s Compensation Commissioner, Patiala.After that complainant requested on 22.2.2010 for payment of death claim of her husband. But complainant was shocked to receive no claim letter dated 19.3.2010 with remarks “ that as per legal opinion of opposite parties advocate the claim is not payable”. After that complainant went to the office of opposite party no.1 and requested to explain the ground on which they have refused the payment but they refused to listen the complainant. That by not making the payment of genuine claim opposite parties have committed deficiency in services and complainant has suffered lot of harassment and mental agony as opposite parties have refused the claim against rules and natural justice. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant is widow and legal heir of the deceased and who got his Maruti Baleno car comprehensively insured with opposite parties. It is denied that the representative of opposite parties inspected the vehicle alongwith all documents including driving licence of the driver Hardip Singh and Mukesh Kumar. It is denied that no copy of policy was issued and only cover note was issued by the opposite parties. It is however, stated that the insurance company had issued private car policy B package in favour of Mukesh Kumar Garg son of Tarlochan Rai Garg Police Post Road Samana for the period 7.9.2008 to 6.9.2009 of car bearing No.PB-11AC-9958 for a sum of Rs.3lacs and the claim of the complainant on account of damage to car has since been paid and the claim of the deceased driver who was driving the car at the time of accident had also been paid. It is denied that the car met with an accident on Samana Patiala Road and the owner and driver of the car died at the spot. It is however, stated that the driver of the car Sh.Hardip Singh had died while driving the same. It is denied that the complainant went to the office of the opposite parties and requested to explain the ground on which they have refused the claim. The claim of the driver of the car Sh.Hardip Singh has since been settled and that of claim of car damage has also been paid. The claim of the complainant for the death of Sh.Mukesh Kumar Garg has since been repudiated as he was not driving the car at the time of accident. The deceased Mukesh Kumar Garg was not on the wheels of the car and does not come under the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim has been rightly repudiated and the complainant has been informed. The visiting of the office of the opposite parties does not arise as the claim has since been repudiated under the terms and conditions of the policy as the claim of the driver of the car has since been settled who was on the wheels of the car. It is denied that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and complainant has suffered lot of harassment and mental agony as opposite parties have refused the claim. The opposite parties have not issued any policy covering the risk of two drivers. It is denied that the complainant has suffered much agony and harassment of the opposite parties due to non payment of insurance amount. It is denied that the insurance company committed deficiency in service. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The case of complainant is that Mukesh Kumar Garg deceased had got his Maruti Baleno car No.PB-11AC-9958 comprehensively insured with opposite party no.1 vide cover note,Ex.C4 for the period 7.9.2008 to 6.9.2009 for sum insured Rs.3,01,000/- against premium of Rs.5719/-.The insurance covered death risk of paid driver and owner as per Workman Compensation Act and Rs.2 lacs in accidental death and premium has been paid Rs.25/- + Rs.100/- respectively and at the time of insurance the representative of opposite parties had inspected the vehicle alongwith all documents including driving licence of the driver Hardip Singh and Mukesh Kumar who used to drive the car. It is also the case of complainant that no copy of policy was issued and only cover note was issued for the said insurance. The car met with an accident on 4.7.2009 on Samana Patiala Road in which the car was badly damaged, driver Hardip Singh who was driving the car and owner Mukesh Kumar Garg died on the spot. It is also the case of complainant that she and her daughter received grievous injuries as they were also sitting on the rear seat of the car and the matter was reported to Police Station Sadar, Patiala and opposite parties were also informed. It is also the case of complainant that after that she requested on 22.2.2010 for payment of death claim of her husband but vide letter dated 19.3.2010,Ex.C17 her claims was repudiated with the remarks “ that as per legal opinion of opposite parties advocate the claim is not payable” and thereafter she went to the office of opposite party no.1 and requested to explain the ground on which they had refused the payment but they refused to listen her. 7. Whereas the case of opposite parties is that the insurance company had issued a private car policy B-package infavour of Mukesh Kumar Garg for the period 7.9.2008-6.9.2009 of car bearing No.PB11AC9958 for a sum of Rs.3lacs and the claim of the complainant on account damage to car has since been paid and the claim of the deceased driver who was driving the car at the time of accident has also been paid. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the driver of the car Sh.Hardip Singh had died while driving the same. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the claim of the complainant for the death of Mukesh Kumar Garg has since been repudiated as he was not driving the car at the time of accident. Deceased Mukesh Kumar Garg was not on the wheels of the car and does not come under the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim has been rightly repudiated . 8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 9. The perusal of the cover note,Ex.C4 would show that car bearing No.PB11AC9958 was insured with opposite party no.1 for the period 7.9.2008 to 6.9.2009 for sum insured Rs.3,01,000/-in the name of deceased Mukesh Kumar Garg. The insurance covers death risk of paid driver and owner as per Workman Compensation Act and Rs.2lacs in accidental death and premium has been paid of Rs.25/- + Rs/100/- respectively. The perusal of the FIR,Ex.C8 would show that the car met with an accident on 4.7.2009 on Samana Patiala Road under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Patiala. The FIR further shows that in the said accident driver Hardip Singh who was driving the car and owner Mukesh Kumar Garg died at the spot. The FIR further shows that complainant and her daughter also received grievous injuries in the said accident. The copy of postmortem report,Ex.C9 shows that Mukesh Kumar Garg had died in the accident. The complainant had filed the claim with the opposite party no.1 vide motor claim form,Ex.C1 regarding the death of Mukesh Kumar Garg.The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter,Ex.C17 dated 19.3.2010 on the ground that as per legal opinion of opposite parties advocate the claim is not payable. Admittedly the claim of the driver of the car Hardip Singh has since been settled and that of claim of car damage has also been paid. According to the opposite parties the claim of the complainant for the death of Mukesh Kumar Garg was repudiated as he was not driving the car at the time of accident. It is also the plea of the opposite parties that the deceased Mukesh Kumar Garg was not on the wheels of the car and does not come under the terms and conditions of the policy. The perusal of the cover note,Ex.C4 would show that Rs.25/- was paid as premium to cover death risk of paid driver and Rs.100/-were paid as premium for the cover of death risk of owner. As per India Motor Tariff in the case of death in Private Car insurance the capital sum insured is Rs.2lacs for a premium of Rs.100/-.In this case as peer the cover note,Ex.C4 premium of Rs.100/- was paid for the insurance of owner driver i.e. Mukesh Kumar Garg and the policy was admittedly for private car. 10. Moreover in the present case there is no condition precedent and/or requirement of law that when accident takes place, unless owner cum driver was on the wheels the opposite parties would be exonerated of their liability. On this point we are also supported by the authority New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar & ors. IV(2008)CPJ 63 . 11. In view of our above discussion we hold that the opposite parties were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant vide letter,Ex.C17 dated 19.3.2010. 12. In the result we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2lacs alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of accident till payment to the complainant alongwith another sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment, inconvenience and mental torture within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:22.11.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
