Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/710

Bhupinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

LakhVir S. Adv

30 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 710 dated 27.09.2017.                                                      

  Date of decision:30.07.2021.  

1. Bhupinder Kaur aged 64 years widow of Late Shingara Singh
2. Harjinder Singh aged 43 years son of Late Shingara Singh
3. Sukhminder Singh aged 41 years son of Late Shingara Singh, all residents of Village Sarinh, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                    ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 10-11, Fourth Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana

Additional Address:

Regd. And Head office: Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No…, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600001, India.

2. Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited, SCO 10-11, Fourth Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Lakhbir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Sarbdeep Singh, Advocate

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that they are the legal heirs of Shingara Singh son of Gurnam Singh, resident of village Sarinh, Tehsil and district Ludhiana, who was the owner/driver of Medium Goods Vehicle Truck Model Tata 1109 bearing registration No.PB10-CC-4436. Shingara Singh had got the truck financed from OP2 for a sum of Rs.2,76,250/-. The said financed amount of Rs.2,76,250/- was repayable by way of 24 installments of Rs.14,675/- each. Shingara Singh got the truck insured vide insurance policy No.3379/01710911/000/00 issued by OP1 on 27.04.2017 which was valid from 27.04.2017 to 26.04.2018. The policy was termed as Package Goods Carrier Vehicle. Shingara Singh paid a sum of Rs.26,901/- as premium in respect of the said policy.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that unfortunately Shingara Singh died in the first week of July 2017 when he was on his way from Bangalore to Ludhiana. Shingara Singh fell prey to the of ailment of jaundice. After reaching home, he was admitted in Pahwa Hospital from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he died on 10.07.2017. The complainants are the only legal heirs of Shingara Singh, who was the only bread earner member of the family. After the death of Shingara Singh, OP1 was liable to bear the liability of the truck towards OP2 in pursuance of terms and conditions of the insurance policy No.3379/01710911/000/00. OP1 is liable to pay the remaining installments of the truck to OP2. On 28.08.2017,  he complainants sent an application to OP1 through registered post for approval of the claim on the basis of insurance policy dated 27.04.2017, but till date no response has been received from OP1. On the other hand, OP2 is pressing the complainants hard for the deposit of the amount of installments and the officials of OP2 are threatening the complainants to take forcible possession of the truck. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that OP1 be directed to admit the claim and take over the liability of late Shingara Singh towards OP2 in paying the outstanding installments to OP2 in respect of the terms and conditions as provided for in the insurance policy issued by OP1 and the OP2 be restrained from taking forcible possession of the truck.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been pleaded that no claim has been rejected by OP1 and therefore, the complaint is premature and deserves dismissal. Moreover, it was never undertaken by OP1 to pay the installments of the loan in the event of death of the insured. The policy in question was only for insuring the costs of repair for the damage to the vehicle or any third party loss in the event of accident and apart from this, it  carried personal accident cover of Rs.2,00,000/- for the insured in the event he dies an accidental death. In the instant case, the complainant admittedly died due to ailment of jaundice, which cannot be said to be an accidental death and therefore, no claim is payable. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other averments made in the complaint are denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In separate written statement filed by OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor this Commission has necessary jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. According to OP2, Shingara Singh took finance assistance of Rs.2,76,250/- against the vehicle No.PB10-CC-4436, which was repayable in 24 monthly installments of Rs.14,675/-. The vehicle was hypothecated in favour of OP2 by way of collateral security and a charge was also created over the vehicle by hypothecating the same. it has been denied that after the death of Shingara Singh, OP1 is liable to pay the remaining installments in terms of insurance policy. It has also been denied that if the officials/musclemen of OP2 are threatening to take illegal possession of the truck in question. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                In evidence, complainant No.1 submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1/A to Ex. C1/D as well as Ex. C2 to Ex. C13 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 submitted affidavit of Sh. Vidhi Passi, Assistant Manager Claims (Legal) of OP1 as Ex. RW1/A along with documents Ex. R1/1 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP2 submitted affidavit of Sh.  Sukhwinder Singh, Officer of OP2 as Ex. RW2/A along with documents Ex. RW2/1 to Ex. RW2/5 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.  Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties.

8.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that as per insurance policy Ex. C7, OP1 was liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on the death of Shingara Singh, but no payment has been made. According to the counsel for the complainant, this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP1 as well as OP2, which is a sister concern of OP1. It is further contended that complaint be allowed and OP1 be directed to pay the amount of outstanding loan against the truck in question to OP2 and be also made to pay compensation to the complainants, as prayed for in the complaint. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that Shingara Singh was suffering from jaundice when he was driving the vehicle back from Bangalore to Ludhiana and therefore, his death is covered under the policy.

9.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 as well as OP2 have argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was entertain-able only if the insured has died by way of accident, as provided for in the policy Ex. R1/1. Since Shingara Singh admittedly died due to ailment of jaundice, it cannot be said that he died as a result of accident. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP1 or OP2 for that matter. Counsel for the OPs has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

11.              In this case, the claim of the complainant is that as per the insurance policy Ex. R1/1, Shingara Singh was covered for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the event of his death, OP1 was liable to pay the entire outstanding amount of loan obtained by Shingara Singh from OP2 to finance the truck. In this regard, the reference can be made to the policy Ex. R1/1, which provides insurance of Rs.3,00,000/- in case of damage to the vehicle. Ex. R1/1 further provides a cover of Rs.2,00,000/- to the owner/driver as personal accident cover. The terms and conditions of the policy are attached with the policy Ex. R1/1 and at page 3 of the policy terms and conditions Ex. R1/1, as per Section IV, the details of personal accident cover for driver/owner are explained, which read as under:-

“Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this policy. The company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the Owner-driver of the vehicle, in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst driving or mounting into/dismounting from the vehicle insured or whilst travelling in it as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in death.’

12.              From the perusal of the above contentions, it becomes explicitly clear that the sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable only if the death of the driver/owner is caused by a violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury shall result in death. Admittedly, Shingara Singh in this case did not die in accident nor he suffered any injury in the accident, which might have later become cause of his death. Admittedly, Shingara Singh died of jaundice, which cannot be said to be an accidental death. Therefore, the death of Shingara Singh by way of jaundice  does not make the complainants entitled for the amount of sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- which is payable only in the event of death of owner/driver by way of accidental injuries.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

                             (Jyotsna Thatai)                                        (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.07.2021.

Gobind Ram.