Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1227/2010

Kulwinder Kaur W/o.Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Brijesh Chauhan OP No.1&2,Brijesh Partap OP No.3&4

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1227 of 2010.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 17.12.2010

                                                                                                Date of decision: 26.04.2016.

1. Kulwinder Kaur aged about 20 years wife of Late Sh. Vinod Kumar,
2. Naina minor daughter of late Sh. Vinod Kumar through her mother Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, as her natural guardian and next friend.
3. Smt. Santosh wife of Sh. Sat Pal (Mother of Vinod Kumar).
4. Sat Pal son of Sh. Bhadu Ram, ( Father of Vinod Kumar)

All residents of House No. 1308, Patak Majri, Radaur, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                      …Complainants.

                                    Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate Office: 4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFCO

Towers, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                            …Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainants No.1 & 2.

              Sh. Brijesh Partap, Advocate, counsel for complainants No. 3 & 4.

              Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed being the LRs of deceased Vinod Kumar (hereinafter referred as complainants)  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging therein that Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Satpal was the registered owner of one motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR-02T-7685 Hero Honda which was insured with the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP Insurance company) vide cover note No. 40741265 valid from 21.1.2010 to 20.1.2011 (Annexure C-1/C-7). According to this insurance policy/cover note, the dirver-cum-owner was also covered for personal accident for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 28.06.2010 Sh. Vinod Kumar (now deceased) was going to village Naggal from Radaur on his motorcycle bearing No. HR-02T-7685 while driving the same and at about 8.40 P.M. when he reached near village Radauri, he met with an accident with Jhota Bugghi. By the impact, he sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died at the spot. Postmortem on the dead body of VinodKumar was conducted at Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on 29.06.2010, copy of which is Annexure C-3. Matter was also reported with the Police and FIR bearing No. 82 dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure C-2) was also registered in the P.S. Radaur. After that complainants informed the OP Insurance Company regarding the death of deceased Vinod Kumar and supplied all the documents and requested for payment of insured amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- for personal accident but the OP Insurance Company has done nothing and has been still sleeping over the matter. Even, the complainants contacted the OP Insurance Company at their Toll Free Number and requested for redressal their girevances but all in vain. Lastly prayed that OP Insurance Company be directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- for personal accident with interest and compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, without jurisdiction, hopelessly time barred as it is crystal clear from the averments made in the complaint that Sh. Vinod Kumar died on 28.06.2010 and the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on the death of Vinod Kumar but the complainants had not lodged any claim with the OP Insurance Company till date. As such, the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint and on merit, it has been stated that no claim has been lodged till date by the complainants with the Op Insurance Company in respect of death of Vinod Kumar. As per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, it is clear that it was the duty of the complainants to inform the insurance company about the death of Vinod Kumar without any delay, so that proper investigation could be conducted and due to the conduct of the complainants all the material evidence has been destroyed due to the lapse of time. Lastly prayed that as there is no deficiency in service, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainants No. 3 & 4 tendered into evidence short affidavit of Satpal, complainant No. 4 as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance Cover Note as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Postmortem report as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of death certificate as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of RC of motorcycle in question as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-6, copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of registered letter dated 27.7.2010 as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants No.3 & 4. However, counsel for complainants No.1 & 2 stated that the documents submitted by the counsel for complainants No.3 & 4 be also read in evidence on behalf of complainants No.1 and 2.

4.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP stated that the contents of written statement be treated as evidence on behalf of OP insurance company and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     From the perusal of photo copy of RC Annexure C-5, it is evident that deceased Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Satpal was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02T-7685 and further from the perusal of photo copy of driving license Annexure C-6, it is also evident that he was having driving license No. DL/N/06-07/11030 valid from 19.03.2009 to 18.03.2029 for scooter and motorcycle issued by Licensing Authority, Jagadhri. It is also not disputed that the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02T-7685 was comprehensively insured with the OP Insurance Company w.e.f. 21.01.2010 to 20.01.2011 and Rs. 50/- was paid on account of personal accident (PA) for owner-cum-driver covering the risk of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is evident from copy of insurance policy (Annexure C-7/ Cover note Annexure C-1). It is also not disputed that deceased Vinod Kumar while driving the motorcycle in question met with an accident on 28.06.2010 with Jhota Bugghi which is evident from copy of FIR bearing No. 82 dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure C-2) registered in the police station Radaur. Further it is also not disputed that deceased Vinod Kumar died at the spot due to serious and grievous injuries received in accident, which is evident from the copy of postmortem report bearing No. VK3/10 dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure C-3) and further from the copy of death certificate (Annexure C-4). Further OP Insurance Company has totally failed to prove that there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in question on the part of complainant. The deceased Vinod Kumar was driving the Motorcycle at the time of accident and he was holding valid driving license to drive the motorcycle in question and further he was insured-registered owner of the motorcycle in question. Meaning thereby, the claim of the complainants are fully covered under the terms and conditions of insurance policy.

7.                     The only plea of the Op Insurance Company is that no claim has been lodged by the complainant, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op Insurance Company but this plea of the Op Insurance Company is not tenable as the complainants have specifically mentioned in their complaint that they have lodged the claim with the agent of the OP Insurance Company and on his refusal, the claim was intimated on TOLL FREE number of the OP Insurance Company as mentioned in para No. 4 of the complaint but in reply to this para the OP Insurance Company denied the contents of this para for want of knowledge only. Meaning thereby that there is no specific denial on behalf of OP Insurance Company. Further, the version of the complainant regarding lodging the claim is duly proved from the registered letter dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure C-8) and postal receipt dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure C-9) that the Op Insurance Company was duly intimated. Even from the other angle also, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants on 24.12.2010 and the Op Insurance Company put their appearance on 10.2.2011 in the present complaint but since then no investigator has been deputed by the OP Insurance Company to rebut the version of the complainant and to find out any adverse against the complainant.

 8                     Now a days as a matter of fact in the reality, insurance companies in India are functioning arbitrarily with a view to escape and avoiding its legal and factual liabilities to make the payment of sum assured and doing fake acting in dramatically, opposite of the principle of fair play and decency and in that series it is not even caring that their wrong actions are causing wrongful losses to their customers.

9.                      Hence, from the perusal of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the OP Insurance Company has wrongly withheld the claim of complainants on flimsy ground and as such there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Co. hence, the complainants are entitled for relief.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainants and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) on account of personal accident (PA) to the complainants being LRs of deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar on account of his death in equal share alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The OP Insurance Company is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Further, the share of the minor Naina will be deposited in the shape of FDR in the Nationalized Bank till attaining the age of majority. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be at liberty to initiate action as per law. The complaint is decided in above terms accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 26.04.2016.        

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                                 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.