DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 29
Instituted on: 19.01.2017
Decided on: 26.04.2017
Kaka Singh son of Hajura Singh, resident of Village Khai, Tehsil Lehragaga, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKIO General insurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Above Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office: IFFCO Sadan C1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi 110 017 through its MD/GM.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
For Ops : Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Kaka Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that son of the complainant, namely, Kamaldeep Singh was the owner of motor cycle bearing registration number PB-13-AN-6509 Honda Dram Yuga and was insured with the OPs for the period from 28.9.2016 to 27.9.2017 under the cover note number 69186658 under which the Op charged an amount of Rs.50/- on account of premium for personal accidental death for Rs.1,00,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that Shri Kamaljeet Singh (referred to as DLA in short) met with an accident on 19.10.2016 when he was going from Khai to Sunam along with one Tarsem Singh and in the accident the DLA suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 25.10.2016 in PGI Chandigarh, of which DDR number 22 dated 19.10.2016 was also recorded at PS Chhajli. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents, but the Ops did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 9.12.2016 upon the OPs, 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.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured/DLA till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has not submitted the claim form regarding the accidental death of the DLA nor submitted any documents such as FIR, driving license of DLA, registration certificate of the motorcycle, post-mortem report etc and legal heir certificate. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OPs for the period from 28.9.2016 to 27.9.2017. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the complainant never lodged any claim with the Ops. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact that the DLA had got insured his motorcycle in question from the Ops under the policy in question. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not settle the claim and further not paid the amount of claim despite submission of all the documents to the Ops. But, on the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant never lodged any claim with the Ops nor submitted any documents and has directly filed the complaint before this Forum. We have very carefully perused the whole complaint case, but did not find any fact in the complaint i.e. when the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops about the accidental death of the DLA nor the complainant has produced any copy of such intimation given to the OPs about the accidental death of the DLA. Further the complainant has neither filed any rejoinder nor stated anything in his affidavit to deny this allegation of the OPs. But, we may mention that the complainant got served a legal notice upon the Ops on 09.12.2016 as well as submitted all the documents during the present proceedings, but the Ops even did not settle the claim despite receipt of all the required documents. As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case, where a direction can be given to the Ops to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days of receipt of the copy of this order.
8. In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to decide the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days and shall intimate its decision to the complainant by registered post. However, if the complainant remains unsatisfied with the decision of the Ops, then it is open for the complainant to approach this Forum again. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 26, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
