Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 298.
Instituted on : 16.05.2017.
Decided on : 13.11.2018.
Deepak s/o Sh. Mahabir R/o Village Ishmila, Tehsil Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Age 20 years, Ph.8607416057.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Cholamandalam General Insurance(Legal) First Floor, Plot No.6, Metro Pillar-81, Pusa Road, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.
- Indusind Bank, near Old ADC Office, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that father of complainant namely Mahavbir Singh had purchased a vehicle No.HR-46D-4739 and the same was financed by Indusind Bank Ltd. and agent of OP No.1 was also present at the office of Indusind Bank and through that agent, the father of complainant got the vehicle insured with original policy certificate No.2841/00123464/0015/000/00. That father of complainant was also covered under this group personal accident master policy for the period 04.07.2014 to 03.07.2017 alongwith the vehicle. That father of complainant met with an accident on 29.06.2015 and died on the spot and the complainant had applied for claim but the officials of opposite party no.1 did not give ear on the request of complainant and on the other hand Indusind Bank is giving notices for the payment and interest upon the said amount is increasing day by day. That the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 many times to pay the genuine claim to the complainant and also served a legal notice dated 14.03.2017 but to no effect. That the act of opposite party No.1 of not paying the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.470000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong that Mahabir Singh met with an accident on 29th of June 2015 and died on the spot due to the said accident. That the complainant is not having any document regarding the accident, moreover the complainant is not having any post-mortem, not any panchnama, FIR or any inquest was conducted. These documents were essential for the just and proper adjudication of the matter in dispute and were not supplied by the complainant. As such complainant is not entitled for any amount as alleged in the complaint and legal notice dated 14.03.2017 was duly replied vide reply dated 08.05.2017. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the opposite party No.1 and the claim was to be finalized by respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 has no role to play in settlement of the claim. That the father of the complainant has availed the financial facility from the answering respondent and has purchased the vehicle by taking a loan from the answering respondent. That there is a default in the loan agreement and the matter was referred to arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. That the guarantor has discharged the liability partly and made the payment in the loan account of deceased Mahabir Singh and still there is an outstanding balance in the aforesaid loan account to the tune of Rs.44647/- to which the complainant is liable to clear the aforesaid legal debts of his father. That no relief has been claimed by the complainant against the answering respondent in the complaint. It is prayed that if the complainant is found entitled to get any amount of compensation from the insurance company in that case the necessary direction may kindly be given to the insurance company to pay the said amount directly to the answering opposite party being the nominee. That the complaint may kindly be dismissed qua the answering respondent.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, Ex.CW1/C, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No.1 on the ground that any document is not submitted by the complainant to prove that the cause of death was an accident. On the other hand, officials of the opposite party himself have placed on record a copy of investigation report Ex.R5 whereby as per the statement given by the claimant and her family members, the deceased was coming down from the stairs and in the middle of stairs, suddenly back side of head hit and he fell down on the ground through the stairs and died on the spot. Her husband did not have mentally disturbance or any disease. Hence the alleged enquiry report itself proves that the cause of death of the father of deceased Mahabir Singh was accident which occurred due to hitting of head at stairs and felling down on the ground through the stairs. The enquiry report is also corroborated with the affidavits of two respectable persons of the village i.e. Sh. Dharambir(member Panchayat-village Ismaila) and Sh. Ram Chander of village Ismaila placed on record as Ex.CW1/B and Ex.CW1/C respectively. At the time of arguments, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has also placed on record terms and conditions of the policy and condition no.1 of the policy under the head Coverages explains that:
“If at any time during the policy period if the insured shall sustain any bodily injury then we shall pay the insured or his/her legal nominee of heir(s) the percentage of sum insured stated in the schedule at the rates mentioned below if such injury shall within 12 calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of death or disability described in benefits schedule”. As such in view of the alleged documents and terms and conditions of the policy, opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the sum Insured to the complainant. As per para no.4 of the reply filed by the opposite party No.2, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.44647/- is an outstanding balance in the loan account of deceased Mahabir Singh.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is observed that opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the Sum Insured i.e. Rs.470000/-(Rupees four lac seventy thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.05.2017 till its realisation and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to complainant. As per enquiry report, Smt. Prem Lata and Geeta are LRs of deceased Mahabir Singh. As such it is made clear that out of the alleged total awarded amount, opposite party no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to opposite party No.2 against the outstanding loan amount and the remaining amount shall be disbursed to complainant Deepak son of Mahabir Singh, Smt.Premlata wife of Mahabir Singh and Ms. Geeta d/o Mahabir Singh in equal shares. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.11.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
