Haryana

Ambala

CC/174/2013

SEEMA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM - Opp.Party(s)

B.B.CHAWLA

26 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No.    : 174 of 2013

Date of Institution       : 11.07.2013

Date of Decision         : 26.05.2017

 

 

Seema Rani wife of Late Sh. Darshan Lal son of Sh. Munshi Ram, resident of House No. 556/11, Shakti Nagar, Ambala City.                                                           

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600001, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Near INCO, Opposite Sanjivni Hospital, Ambala City.

 

                                                                                    ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. B.B Chawla, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Vig, Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER.

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was legally wedded wife of Late Shri Darshan lal son of Shri Munshi Ram, who got his three wheeler bearing registration No. HR37-C/4903 make Mahindra insured with the opposite party No. 2 for the period from 21-06-2012 to 20-06-2013, which covers personal accident and the husband of the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 4,896/- on account of premium for the said period being comprehensively insured. It is submitted that on 30-11-2012, the husband of complainant was coming from Prem Nagar to his house after repairing his aforesaid three wheeler; and when he reached near the gate of Bal Bhwan Ambala City; suddenly a stray cow appeared in front of his three wheeler, the driver of the three wheeler namely Shri Swaran Singh tried his level best to avoid the accident and during this process the three wheeler became out of control and turned turtle of its own on the road and the husband of the complainant sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person. The driver also sustained injuries. The husband of the complainant due to head injuries died in PGI Chandigarh and a DDR No. 20 dated 30-11-2012 was got lodged with the police of police post No. 03, under Police Station Ambala City. The complainant had spent more than Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment, medicines, transportation and last rites including funeral of her husband. Thereafter, the complainant went to opposite party No. 2 repeatedly, as the insurance stated above pertains to personal accident covers and the husband of the complainant   paid the premium for the same; but the OP No. 2 kept lingering on the same on one pretext or the others. In the first week of January 2013, the opposite party No. 2 refused to make the payment of insurance. The complainant got the opposite parties served with the legal notice dated 31-01-2013 but despite receipt of legal notice, the OPs paid no heed to the said notice. Hence, it is prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of insurance under Policy No. 3368/00379677/000/02 vide cover note No. 50933263along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant.  

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint.  On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant has never approached to the OPs with regard to her claim. It is submitted that three wheeler bearing registration No. HR 37C-4903 was insured vide policy No. 3368/00379677/000/02 and OPs had charged Rs. 4896/- as premium from the owner i.e. Darshan Lal including Rs. 100/- covering the risk of compulsory PA for owner driver was given to him. The owner of the said vehicle was not driving the three wheeler No. HR 37C-4903 at the time of the alleged incident. The policy only covering the risk of compulsory PA for owner driver; where as per DDR one Swaran Singh was driving the said three wheeler at the time of the alleged incident as owner –cum-driver of the said vehicle; so the complainant is not entitled for compensation on account of death of Darshan Singh as personal accident as per Policy. It is further submitted that no such notice has been received by the OPs. Thus prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed her evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavits as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. Case of the complainant is that on 30-11-2012, the husband of complainant was coming from Prem Nagar to his house after repairing his aforesaid three wheeler; and when he reached near the gate of Bal Bhwan Ambala City; suddenly a stray cow appeared in front of his three wheeler, the driver of the three wheeler namely Shri Swaran Singh tried his level best to avoid the accident and during this process the three wheeler became out of control and turned turtle of its own on the road and the husband of the complainant sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person and due to head injuries he died in PGI Chandigarh.

                        Counsel for the complainant has argued that the said accident is covered under the personal accident, on which the complainant visited several times to opposite party No. 2 and requested to pass the claim of her husband, as the insurance pertains to personal accident covers but the OP No. 2 refused to make the payment of insurance.

                        On the other hand counsel for the OPs has argued that complainant has never approached to the OPs with regard to her claim. It is further argued that three wheeler bearing registration No. HR 37C-4903 was insured vide policy No. 3368/00379677/000/02 and OPs had charged Rs. 4896/- as premium from the owner i.e. Darshan Lal including Rs. 100/- covering the risk of compulsory PA for owner driver was given to him. The owner of the said vehicle was not driving the three wheeler at the time of the alleged incident. The policy only covering the risk of compulsory PA for owner driver; whereas per DDR one Swaran Singh was driving the said three wheeler at the time of the alleged incident as owner –cum-driver of the said vehicle; so the complainant is not entitled for compensation on account of death of Darshan Singh as personal accident as per Policy.

                        After hearing the parties and gone through the case file carefully, we are of the considered view that the deceased Darshan Lal insured was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident, so his claim does not cover in the personal accident as per policy.

                        Counsel for the OPs has further reliance upon the case law 2006 (3) CLT 661 titled as “Manjit Kaur and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g) – India Motor Tariff, GR36- Insurance claim- personal accident cover – The vehicle in question was being driven not by the owner –complainant  in whose name the insurance was done but by ‘H’ husband of the complainant – Held that personal accident insurance would not cover the risk of ‘H’ – do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint and another case law cited in F.A. 1173 of 2010 decided on 09-12-2010 title as Bajaj Allianz vs. Jagdish Singh (P & H High Court), which is squarely covering the facts and circumstances of the case.         We are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any claim. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:  26.05.2017.                                       (D.N. ARORA)

                           PRESIDENT                      

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER