Punjab

Sangrur

CC/57/2018

Shinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Udit Goyal

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.  57

                                                Instituted on:    12.02.2018

                                                Decided on:       10.08.2018

 

1. Shinder Kaur aged 48 years wife of Sh. Nirmal Singh,

2. Nirmal Singh aged 51 years son of Sh. Babu Singh, both residents of Village Kattu Balian, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.             Cholamandlam MS General Insurance company Limited, 1^st Floor, KL Plaza, 132/3, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Line, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

2.             Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: SCO 243, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.             Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Manager (Authorised dealer of Mahindra four Wheelers).

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1&2                 :               Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Smt. Shinder Kaur and Nirmal Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that their son Shri Gurpreet Singh availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Mahindra Pickup car bearing number PB-19H-8499 from the OPs for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- under zero depreciation policy.  It is further averred that under the said policy, the son of the complainant was also insured for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under personal accidental policy.  It is further averred that the complainants are the LRs of said Gurpreet Singh and as such has filed the present complaint.  Further grievance of the complainant is that unfortunately on 25.1.2017, Shri Gurpreet Singh along with his associate Paramjit Singh had gone to Sunam for collecting the milk in the said vehicle and when the said vehicle was being driven by Gurpreet Singh on 25.1.2017 at 6.30 PM and when they reached near Main Bathinda Road, Sunam, then a stray animal came in front of the vehicle  and in order to save collusion, resulting which the vehicle struck with the wall and the said Gurpreet Singh sustained multiple grievous injuries on their person and died and the vehicle was also badly damaged. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter DDR number 15 dated 26.1.2017 was also lodged at PS City Sunam and post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was also conducted at Civil Hospital, Sunam.   Thereafter the complainant number 2 took the vehicle to the workshop of OP number 3, where the vehicle remained parked for about one month and the OP number 1 and 2 appointed surveyor, who prepared the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.6 Lacs.  Thereafter the complainant approached the Ops to get the claim, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.6,50,000/- i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- on account of loss of vehicle and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of personal accidental benefit and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum and are not entitled to get any claim,  that the accident took place on 25.1.2017 and the intimation was given to the OPs on 7.4.2017 after 71 days from the date of loss and that the insured did not had a valid fitness certificate on the material date of accident.  On merits,  it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further averred that the accident took place on 25.1.2017, whereas intimation of the accident was given on 7.4.2017. However, registration of DDR and conducting of post-mortem have been admitted. It is stated further that the claim has rightly been repudiated and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has dragged the OP number 3 into unwanted litigation.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of the OP number 3 and thereafter the surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/5 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Mahindra Pickup bearing registration number PB-19-H-8499 for the period from 21.5.2016 to 20.5.2017 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.20,430/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-4.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured comprehensively for Rs.4,50,000/- only.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question damaged badly and suffered huge loss during the subsistence of the insurance policy and it is further not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 1 about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents to the OPs, the OPs have repudiated the claim on account of damage to the vehicle of the complainant on the ground that the claim is not payable as the vehicle in question was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the claim is not payable being the vehicle in question was not having fitness certificate at the time of accident.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs insured the vehicle on comprehensive basis by charging an amount of Rs.20,430/- from the complainant and at this stage at the time of payment of the claim, it does not seem fair in the mouth of the OPs that the vehicle in question was not having any fitness certificate.  At the time of insuring the vehicle in question, it was the option of the Ops not to insure the same and they could refuse the complainant about the insurance of the vehicle on comprehensive basis, if it was not having any valid fitness certificate. Moreover, it is not on record that the cause of accident was the fitness of the vehicle, but the cause of the accident of the vehicle is of appearance of a stray animal on the front of the vehicle at the time of driving by Gurpreet Singh. Under the circumstances, we feel that the OPs cannot deny the claim on this score alone and it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not paying the insurance claim of the complainant.

 

7.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the vehicle is in total loss, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the vehicle in question was of total loss, more so when, the copy of survey report submitted by Shri Charanveer Singh is on record as Ex.OP1&2/4, whereby he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,48,597/-  and as such we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs  are directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,48,597/- only as assessed by the surveyor in his report, Ex.OP1&2/4. 

 

8.             Further perusal of the insurance policy, Ex.C-4 clearly reveals that the owner driver was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- in case of accidental death and for this the OP had charged an amount of Rs.100/- as premium. It is on record that the owner cum driver Shri Gurpreet Singh died in the accident and to support this contention, we have also perused the copy of the post-mortem report Ex.C-6 and further copy of DDR on record is Ex.C-5, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of accidental death of Shri Gurpreet Singh.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainants an amount of
Rs.4,48,597/- (Rs.2,48,597/- plus Rs.2,00,000/-) as discussed above along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.2.2018 till realisation in full. We further direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of  litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order. 

 

10.            A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                                August 10, 2018.

 

                                               

                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                Presiding Member

 

                                       

                                             (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                       Member