Haryana

Karnal

154/2010

Kamla W/o Jai Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Swaran Singh

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 153 of 2010

                                                          Date of instt.: 8.03.2010

                                                          Date of decision:

 

Smt.Kamla wife of late Sh.Jai Kumar resident of village Chhapra Khera tehsil and district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

H.D.F.C.General Insurance Company Limited, 21^st floor, Aman Deep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Manager.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.S.S.Moonak Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

 

            This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that her husband Jai Kumar was owner of three wheeler bearing registration no. HR-45A-2868 which was insured with the OP vide cover note No. VCB-1327053 valid from 28.4.2008 to 27.4.2009. Jai Kumar died in a road side accident within the area of P.S. Sadar, Karnal on 16.2.2009 and the case bearing registration No.97 dated 16.2.2009 was registered regarding the  said  accident. The three wheeler was damaged extensively in the said accident .It has further been pleaded that as per cover note/policy issued by the OP,  extra premium of Rs.100/- was paid  for insurance cover to the  owner- cum- driver. Therefore, the OP was liable to pay a sum of Rs.two lacs  to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant submitted claim form alongwith other documents to the OP but her claim was not settled despite repeated requests. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of all legal heirs of Jai Kumar and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that  during survey of loss, the complainant submitted driving licence of Jai Kumar bearing No. 6962/07-08, who was d riving the vehicle at the time of accident. On investigation, it was found that Jai Kumar was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, taking into consideratio9n the terms of the policy , the claim of the complainant had been made as “No Claim”  and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 30.3.2009. It has further been pleaded that driving licence of Jai Kumar attached with the complaint was never submitted to the OP and the same was procured by the complainant later on. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the OP, affidavit of S.C.Vats, Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O6 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.