In the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan.
(Muchipara, G.T. Road, Burdwan.)
Consumer Complaint No. - 105/2014.
Date of filing - 03.06.2014.
Date of final order - 30.07.2015.
Present:
i) Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal Honorable President.
ii) Sm.Silpi Majumder Honorable Member.
Ketipha Bibi,
W/o.Late Sekh Sukur,
Vill. & P.O.-Bhuri, Muslim para,
P.S.-Pandabeswar, Asansol,
Dist.: Burdwan Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Branch Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asansol Branch, having its office at Sriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd., 74 (192), G.T. Road, P.C. Chatterjee Market,
3rd floor, A-Block, Rambandhu Tala, Asansol-713303, Dist.-Burdwan,
2. General Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, Rico Industrial area, Sitapura, Joypur, Rajasthan,
Pin-302022. Opposite Parties.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. after settling the complainant’s claim, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that Sekh Sukur the husband of the complainant subscribed into a personal insurance policy having policy No.10003/31/12/635179 valid for a period from 3.3.2012 to 3.3.2013 covering Rs.2,00,000/- with the O.P. Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Said Sukur died on 28.4.2012 in his insured truck accident. One Sk. Samsuddin lodged FIR with Galsi P.S. stating the fact of the accident and on the basis of said FIR Galsi P.S. Case No.101/2012 was started. The complainant being beneficiary, on several occasions visited the office of the O.P. and demanded claim form to make claim but no action was taken by the O.Ps.. On 15.2.2013 the complainant by sending a letter along with copies of FIR, death certificate, insurance policy etc. through registered post, made a prayer before the O.P. No. 2 to issue claim form for making claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of Sk. Sukur in said motor accident. But the O.P. No.2 did not take any steps to issue claim form and to settle the matter. Finally, in the month of
-2-
March, 2014 the complainant downloaded the claim form from internet and she submitted such filled-up claim form along with required documents. But till this day no action has been taken by the O.Ps. The complainant communicated the O.P. No.1 who advised her to lodge a fresh claim. The acts of the O.Ps. clearly show that the O.ps. have an ill-intention to deprive the complainant from getting such amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant has been harassed and has been forced to file this case. As such she is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost also. Hence this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No.2 did not contest this case appearing in this case and accordingly this case was heard ex-parte against him.
The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action, the claim of the complainant is not tenable as it is pre-mature one, the complainant is not a consumer as per Section-2(1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986 and the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hand. It has been further stated by this O.P. that the policy No. 10003/31/12/635179 issued in favour deceased Sk. Sukur, was valid for the period from 4.3.2012 to 3.3.2012, the same was issued covering the risk of vehicle No.WB37/6988 bearing Engine and Chassis Nos. 697D22LQQ13398 and 373011LQQ127891 respectively subject to the terms and conditions as mentioned therein, as per policy schedule general regulation 36A P.A. for owner-driver, Rs.100/- was paid as premium and the limit of coverage of that was Rs.2,00,000/-, no intimation regarding the alleged accident was given by the complainant or by any one on behalf of the complainant or by the police personnel to the O.Ps., there is toll free number in the policy for lodging claim and/or giving intimation regarding accident but sunh number was not used to give the intimation of the accident to the O.Ps., as per Motor Vehicle Act after the death of actual owner, his legal heirs may be the owners of the vehicle but nothing was submitted showing that the complainant became the owner of the vehicle in question, as per terms of the policy, only for the owner-driver compensation may be settled but before this Ld. Forum and before the O.Ps. the complainant never produced the seizure list from which it would be appeared that the victim Sk. Sukur was driving the alleged truck at the time of accident, if the claim was lodged within the time specified, before the O.Ps., the O.Ps. had liability to settle the claim as per provision of Section-64 VB of Insurance Act for requirement GR36A of Indian Motor Tariff but the complainant did not make any claim before the O.Ps. within stipulated period and knowing fully well that she is not entitled to get any indemnification under the policy, the complainant did not lodge any claim before the O.Ps and subsequently to harass the O.Ps. and for unlawful gain the complainant has filed this case. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
In support of her case, the complainant has adduced her statement supported by affidavit and some documents which are photo copies of the policy certificate, FIR dated 28.4.2012, formal FIR, post mortem report, voter’s identity card & the letter dared 15.2.2013 and two postal receipts. On the other hand the contesting O.P. No.1 has relied upon the evidence on affidavit of Sourav Ghosh, the Legal Officer of O.P. Company.
-3-
During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s has relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2012(3) CPR 127 (NC), 2012 (4)CPR 270 (NC), 2014 (4) CPR 38(NC) and 2015 (1) CPR 794 (NC). We carefully perused such observations.
On perusing the case record it appears that the accident took place on 28.4.2012. This case was filed on 3.6.2014 after the expiry of the period of limitation. Order No.6 dated 6.8.2014 shows that this Forum, on the basis of the complainant’s petition U/s 24A of C.P. Act, 1986, was pleased to condone the delay in filing this complaint. So, at this stage we do not like to give findings afresh on the point of limitation and we hold that the case is not barred by limitation.
In the complainant the complainant has stated that after the accident in question she made correspondence with the O.Ps. but no fruitful result was made. The contesting O.P. has denied this case of the complainant stating that the accident was not intimated to the O.Ps. and accordingly the O.Ps. did not get any opportunity to settle the matter and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The oral evidence adduced by the complainant in this connection has not been corroborated by any documentary evidence. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant in this connection has relied upon the copy of the letter dated 15.2.2013 which shows that the complainant by sending said letter requested the O.P. No.1 to supply the necessary form and to take necessary steps, so that the complainant could get her claim. But nothing is coming to show that said letter was received the O.P. No.1. From the side of the complainant two postal receipts have been filed but no postal acknowledgment has been submitted and as such it is not possible to connect the postal receipts with this copy of the letter dated 15.2.2013. The materials on record are not sufficient to show that the complainant placed her claim before the O.Ps. in time and as per terms of the policy. So, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is premature one.
From the side of the complainant and also from the side of the O.Ps., the copies of policy certificate have been filed. On perusing these copies of certificate it appears that the husband of the complainant paid Rs.100/- as premium for General Regulation 36A Personal Accident Coverage for owner-driver and the limit of liability of the O.Ps. was Rs.2,00000/-. In the complaint it is admitted that at the time of accident the truck in question was not driven by the husband of the complainant being the owner of the vehicle. The copy of the written complaint made by Sk. Samsuddin (FIR) before the O.C., Galsi P.S. shows that the accident took place on 28.4.2012 and in the said accident Sk. Sukur, the owner of the vehicle in question died and immediately after the said accident the driver of the truck fled away from the spot. From the copy of the FIR it is clear that another one was driving the vehicle and by said vehicle Sk. Sukur was travelling at the time of occurrence. The driving license of said Sk. Sukur has not been filed in this case. From the contains of the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear that deceased Sk.Sukur was not the owner-driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. In IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sheetalben Nileshbhai Surti case reported in 2014 (4) CPR (NC) 38, the Hon’able National Commission has been pleased to observe that owner-driver means the registered owner of the vehicle and his name must been shown as insured in policy and owner-driver must own the effective driving license at the time of accident and as at the time of accident the deceased was not shown as owner in the insurance policy and in such circumstances, no claim under the
-4-
policy was payable to him. The Hon’ble National Commission in the said case has also been pleased to hold that the owner-driver must hold effective driving license at the time of accident.
Considering the materials on record, we are of the opinion that at the time of accident in question, though Sk. Sukur was the registered owner of the vehicle and his name was shown as insured in the policy but he had no effective driving license at the time of accident. So the claim of the complainant is not justified.
In view of the above discussion, the case is premature one, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the claim of the complainant is not tenable as at the time of accident Sk. Sukur, the deceased husband of the complainant had no effective driving license.
Accordingly the case fails.
Fees paid is correct. Hence it is
Ordered
that the complaint case being No. 105/2014 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against the rest without cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cot.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
