The titled Complainant Smt.Sarabjit the DLI (Deceased Life Insured) Widow has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties seeking release of Rs.2.0 Lac being the mandatory-insurance sum on the life of her owner-driver husband who had succumbed to his burn-injuries along with three other persons on spot in the road-side head-on collision-accident of his Truck-Trailer with another Truck during a routine transport-goods delivery-tour to Rajasthan. Smt.Sarabjit has been the legal-heir widow of the DLI Pargat Masih the owner-driver of his comprehensively-insured Truck-Trailer with the OP1 insurers' policy # 3379/01412418/000/01@ premium of Rs.68,776/- for an IDV (Insured Depreciated Value) of Rs.22.80 Lac besides the mandatory insurance cover of Rs.2.0 Lac on his life (being the owner-driver) payable to nominee/legal-heirs. The complainant pleads here that the Vehicle was financed by the OP2 Bank who had got the same insured with the OP1 insurers in line with/qua terms of the tie-up arrangement between the two parties/business associates. The complainant in her capacity as nominee/legal-heir has repeatedly approached both the OP s and pleaded release of the P.A. (Personal Accident) insurance Cover insurance of Rs.2.0 Lac to her and also got legal notice served upon them but in vain and has thus filed the present complaint seeking release of the P.A. Cover sum-amount of Rs.2.0 Lac besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play.
2. The present complaint has been duly supported by the complainant's affidavit (Ex.CW-1) along with the hereunder listed documents produced in evidence seeking the aforesaid reliefs. (Listed Documents): Ex.C1– Copy of the Legal Heir Certificate as issued by the D.C. Gurdaspur; Ex.C2– Copy of the Policy Schedule with mention of PAC of Rs.2.0 Lac; Ex.C3– Copy of the Post Mort-em Report; Ex.C4 – Copy of the Death Certificate; Ex.C5– Copy of the Legal Notice; Ex.C6– Postal Receipts in original; Ex.C7– Copy of the FIR # 018 dated 16.03.2018; Ex.C8– Copy of the Truck-Trailer PB-06-V-8501; Rejoinder(s) and the written arguments.
3. The titled opposite party No.1 (the OP1 insurers), in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement/reply stating therein preliminary as well as other (on merits) objections as: That the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no 'cause of action' or 'locus-standee' to file the present complaint that has been pre-mature as no claim has since been filed by any body; And, thus there has been 'No deficiency in Service' on their part. On merits, the OP1 insurers plead that the policy coverage etc are subject to verification of the related records and there's been no evidence of complainant as lone legal-heir of the DLI. Further, the OP1 insurers have point-blank denied all other contents as put forth in the present complaint and have sought its dismissal (with costs) placing-forth, herein, the lone affidavit (Ex.OP1/1/A) by Ms.Vidhi Passi the authorized signatory sans any document in evidence, thereof.
4. Similarly, the titled opposite party No.2 (the OP2 Bank), in compliance to the notice vide the commission’s summons appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement/ reply stating therein preliminary as well as other (on merits) objections as: That the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP2 Bank as the DLI has been plying the financed Truck-Trailer on commercial purpose for earning of profits. On merits, the OP2 Bank has denied all the contents of the complaint except that the Truck-Trailer was financed by them sans any comments on the status of the loan account etc and has sought dismissal of the present complaint by filing the lone affidavit (Ex.OP2/1) sans any document in evidence and not even the statutory written arguments.
5. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us.
6. We have also been inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not-produced during the course of the present proceedings. We observe that the OP1 insurers' prime objection/pleading favoring/justifying non-payment of the PAC (Personal Accident Cover) amount of Rs.2.0 Lac has been non-filing of the related claim by the nominee complainant/legal-heir of the DLI. The OP1 insurers must realize that it has been their professional as well as statutory duty to have recorded the name/details of the nominee of the owner-driver recorded with them at the time of issuance of the vehicle insurance of which the said PAC insurance forms the mandatory/statutory part; And, of late, IRDA of India (Insurance Regulatory Development Authority) has issued guidelines that wheresoever practically feasible the P. A. amount due in such eligible cases shall be sou-motto paid to the recorded nominee by the insurers. We find it indeed sad that the OP1 insurers in serious dereliction of their professional duty have omitted to place the requisite information as readily available with them before the instant proceedings and such-like acts/omissions have put them on the adverse side of the statutory award under the herein applicable statute. Even the most simple and harmless queries have been replied/reacted in an articulate manner shrugging these as matter of records that were very much under their own custody.
7. The OP2 Bank has also replied rather reacted upon the contents of the complaint with an unnecessary discourtesy and insensitivity towards the utmost human suffering by way of demise of the one bread-winner head of the unfortunate family. The OP2 Bank has advanced a remunerative Truck-Trailer Loan to the DLI/truck owner-driver whose list of legal-heirs must have been on the Bank's file and it had been their professional cum moral duty to have assisted the complainant in getting her at least the P.C. Amount of Rs.2.0 Lac from the OP1 insurers. Further, the OP2 Bank has also ignored/omitted to provide even the minimal assistance/information during the instant proceedings falling in line with the OP1 insurers in their acts/omissions committed in common endeavor towards non-resolve of the Personal Accident Cover of the DLI owner-driver. Both the OP1 and the OP2 have not placed forth any documents in evidence and thus all their pleadings are nothing more than bald statements having defunct legal value.
8. We thus discard the above pleadings/arguments of the OP1 insurers as well as those of the OP Bank, being in total contravention of the laws of equity, good conscience and natural justice. We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the herein both the OP s in settling the P.A. claim that they have been legally bound to honor of course up to the recorded mandatory level of Rs.2.0 Lac and as such the impugned ‘non-resolve’ on the OP1 insurer's part had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred statutory consumer rights of the complainant causing her a lot of physical as well as mental harassment cum agony and loss of peace in her routine life. Lastly, we hold the insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute. However, the OP insurers in order to pay the impugned claim shall be at liberty to procure certified copies of the requisite document(s), if any, from the records of the present complaint, in accordance with the prescribed rules.
9. In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the impugned P.A. claim in terms of the related policy i.e. the full personal accident cover of Rs.2.0 Lac with interest @ 6% PA from the date of complaint (till paid in full) besides a sum of Rs.15,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated award amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till realization, in full.
10. And, we further ORDER the OP2 Bank, on account of the passive and negative role played by them during the instant proceedings, to pay Rs.5,000/- in lump sum to the widow complainant as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till realization, in full.
11. The complainant may apply for statutory indulgence of this commission, in accordance with the provisions of law, in case of non-compliance at the OP s' end.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
DEC. 15, 2022. Member.
YP.
