Haryana

Kaithal

162/21

Mrs.Neelam - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajesh Kumar

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.162/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 13.07.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:02.06.2023.

1. Mrs. Neelam (wife) 2. Gaurav (minor) (son) 3. Sourabh (minor) (son) 4. Raj Pati w/o Rai Singh (mother) of late Sh. Satyawan S/o Rai Singh, complainants No.2 & 3 are minors through their mother Mrs. Neelam as her natural guardian/next friend, all Rs/o H.No.1049, near Boys School, Jind Road, VPO Deoban, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Regd. Office: 34, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110019 through its Regional Manager, Plot No.2 B & C, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon-122001 through its Branch Manager. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. Arvind Khurania, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Smt. Neelam and others-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR51BR-7040 was insured with the OPs.  The OPs had issued an insurance policy No.1-18MAJBYD-P400 MA-773456 dt. 09.10.2019 valid for the period 11.10.2019 to 11.10.2020 in favour of insured Raj Kumar.  The case of complainants is that the deceased Satyawan was covered under Personal Accident with the OPs and company has received premium of Rs.350/-.  On 07.10.2020 deceased Satyawan was coming back on the aforesaid motor-cycle to his Village Deoban from Krishna Hospital, Kalayat after taking medicines.  When he reached near hotel of Village Kharak Pandwa,  due to unbalance of motor-cycle, deceased fell down and motor-cycle hit the divider of road.  The deceased received serious & grievous injuries and shifted to General Hospital, Kaithal for treatment but he succumbed due to injuries sustained in this accident.  The post-mortem of deceased Satyawan was conducted by Medical Officer, G.H., Kaithal.  Information regarding accident was given in P.S. Kalayat and DDR No.12 dt. 08.10.2020 was also registered.  The complainants lodged the personal accident insurance claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but OPs did not settle the claims of complainants.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is pre-mature as no claim was filed with the Ops and no documents were submitted to the OPs; that even if there was an intimation, the claim would not be payable in the light of fact that deceased was only driver of the vehicle in question and hence, does not fall under purview of PA cover of Rs.15 lakhs which was only available for registered owner of the vehicle in whose name certificate of insurance issued; who is Raj Kumar in this case not the deceased Satyawan who might have driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident; that the complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint before this Commission as neither the premium was paid by the complainants or the deceased nor the policy has been issued in their favour; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that the motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR51BR-7040 was insured with the OPs.  The OPs had issued an insurance policy No.1-18MAJBYD-P400 MA-773456 dt. 09.10.2019 valid for the period 11.10.2019 to 11.10.2020 in favour of insured Raj Kumar.  It is further argued that the deceased Satyawan was covered under Personal Accident with the OPs and company has received premium of Rs.350/-.  It is further argued that on 07.10.2020 deceased Satyawan was coming back on the aforesaid motor-cycle to his Village Deoban from Krishna Hospital, Kalayat after taking medicines.  When he reached near hotel of Village Kharak Pandwa,  due to unbalance of motor-cycle, deceased fell down and motor-cycle hit the divider of road.  The deceased received serious & grievous injuries and shifted to General Hospital, Kaithal for treatment but he succumbed due to injuries sustained in this accident.  The post-mortem of deceased Satyawan was conducted by Medical Officer, G.H., Kaithal.  Information regarding accident was given in P.S. Kalayat and DDR No.12 dt. 08.10.2020 was also registered.  The complainants lodged the personal accident insurance claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but OPs did not settle the claims of complainants.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  Ld. counsel for the complainants has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Vasuki & another Vs. Santhi & another decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.10.2021 bearing Civil Appeal Nos.6257-6258 of 2021 (SLP(C) NO.13041-13042/2017). 

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the present complaint is pre-mature as no claim was filed with the Ops and no documents were submitted to the OPs.  It is further argued that even if there was an intimation, the claim would not be payable in the light of fact that deceased was only driver of the vehicle in question and hence, does not fall under purview of PA cover of Rs.15 lakhs which was only available for registered owner of the vehicle in whose name certificate of insurance issued; who is Raj Kumar in this case not the deceased Satyawan who might have driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident.  It is further argued that the complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint before this Commission as neither the premium was paid by the complainants or the deceased nor the policy has been issued in their favour.  Ld. counsel for the OPs placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Vs. UII decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.10.2010 and Ritu Devi and others Vs. Joginder Singh and others decided by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 19.11.2018.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the policy as per Annexure-C1 that the same was issued in the name of Raj Kumar as he was the owner of motor-cycle in question.  The complainants have claimed the personal accident claim to the tune of Rs.15 lacks for the death of Satyawan.  In the present case, deceased Satyawan was only driver of the vehicle in question and hence, does not fall under purview of PA cover of Rs.15 lakhs which was only available for registered owner of the vehicle in whose name certificate of insurance issued, who is Raj Kumar in this case not the deceased Satyawan.  The complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint before this Commission as neither the premium was paid by the complainants or the deceased nor the policy has been issued in their favour.  There is no privity of contract between the complainants or the deceased Satyawan with the OPs-insurance company.  We rely upon the case titled as Ritu Devi etc. Vs. Joginder Singh etc. (supra), wherein it is mentioned that GR-36 states that only the registered owner in person is entitled for Personal Accident Cover if he holds an effective driving licence.  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authority submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant is not distinguishable but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.

10.            As a result of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.06.2023.

 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.