BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.43/16.
Date of instt.: 09.02.2016.
Date of Decision: 20.01.2017.
- Rahul D.O.B.-29.09.2006, Adopted son of Ramesh Kumar son of late Ram Singh, resident of Vill. Shimla, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, minor through next friend/Guardian Shamsher son of late Ram Singh Real Uncle.
- Phool Kumar son of late Ram Singh, R/o Village Shimla, District Kaithal.
- Shamsher son of late Ram Singh, R/o Village Shimla, District Kaithal. ……….Complainants.
Versus
- Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1012/11, Opp. Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager (Jeep No.HR-08G-7477), Policy No.A-3A 17 PG 6-P 400 Policy/90685196, Date of Instt.20/01/2015.
- Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Kalayat.
- District Development & Panchayat Officer, Kaithal.
- State of Haryana through Collector, Kaithal.
………Respondents
- Omi Devi W/o Ram Kumar R/o Village Sisla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Nanhi W/o Prem R/o Village Sisla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Maya Devi W/o Mahavir R/o Village Sisla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Jagroop S/o late Inder Singh R/o Village Shimla, Distt. Kaithal.
- Jagbir S/o late Inder Singh, R/o Village Shimla, Distt. Kaithal.
10.Krishan Singh son of late Ram Singh R/o Village Shimla, District Kaithal.
…Performa Respondents.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Dinesh Tayagi, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. C.K.Ranga, Adv. for Ops No.2 to 4.
Ops No.5 to 10 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant No.1 is adopted son of late Ramesh, complainants No.2 & 3 are real brothers of late Ramesh, performa Ops No.5 to 7 are real sisters of late Ramesh, performa Ops No.8 & 9 are sons of real brother of Ramesh and performa Op No.10 is also real brother of Ramesh. It is alleged that the deceased workman Ramesh Kumar was employed as jeep driver under the Ops No.2 to 4. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2015, the workman on the instructions of Ops No.2 to 4 went to Chandigarh at Punjab and Haryana High Court while driving official jeep No.HR-08G-7477 alongwith officials of Ops and while returning from Chandigarh, the workman dropped the officials at Kaithal and returning to BD & PO Office Kalayat at about 08.40 p.m. near Village Kailram, the said vehicle met with an accident. It is further alleged that the workman suffered serious injuries in the said accident and taken to G.H. Kaithal for treatment and then taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. It is further alleged that on 29.08.2015 at about 08.45 p.m., the workman expired due to injuries suffered in the accident. It is further alleged that no post-mortem of dead body was got conducted by the doctors at Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. It is further alleged that the G.D. No.30A dt. 28.08.2015 lodged by the police of P.S.Kalayat on the written complaint of employers vide letter No.2244 dt. 28.08.2015 of B.D. & P.O. Kalayat. It is further alleged that the complainants lodged the claim with the Ops No.1 to 4 but they did not settle the clam of complainants. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 appeared before this forum, whereas performa Ops No.5 to 10 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 24.05.2016. Op No.1 filed separate reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the deceased Ramesh was bachelor and his parents were already expired. Rahul (minor) complainant was not his son and the story of adoption of said child by the deceased is false and concocted one with malafide intention; that no post-mortem of the body of deceased was got conducted as mentioned in the complaint; that only one Daily Station General Dairy Entry No.30(A) was entered on 28.08.2015 on the basis of letter of B.D. & P.O. Kalayat regarding the said accident. In such type of accidental death, the post-mortem of body is mandatory and without which the cause of death could not ascertain. In the present case, there is no FIR, no police investigation was conducted, no post-mortem of body of deceased was conducted, no record of employment, salary, attendance of deceased available. No legal adoption deed regarding adoption of complainant by the deceased is available. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ops No.2 to 4 filed joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that the relief sought by the complainants does not relate to answering Ops as insurance amount is to be paid by the insurer company as per their own rules and regulations; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainants have concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the said Ramesh Kumar was given employment for 89 days for the first time from 05.04.199 to 06.07.1999 and after 89 days of his service, the services of said Ramesh Kumar had been terminated on 06.07.1999, thereby deliveries him his relieving letter and said Ramesh Kumar put his signatures in token of its correctness. Similarly, the workman Ramesh Kumar was again appointed for 89 days since 08.07.1999 to 04.10.1999 and again his services were dispensed with on 04.10.1999 and the workman Ramesh Kumar put his signatures in token of its correctness. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CL and Mark-CA and closed evidence on 01.08.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.RA and closed evidence on 14.10.2016. Ops No.2 to 4 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 to 4 was closed vide court order dt. 24.10.2016.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainants argued that the complainant No.1 is adopted son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar (since deceased), complainants No.2 & 3 and performa respondent No.10 are real brothers, performa respondents No.5 to 7 are real sisters of late Ramesh Kumar and performa respondents No.8 & 9 are sons of real brother of deceased Ramesh Kumar. He further argued that the deceased Ramesh Kumar was employee as driver under Ops No.2 to 4. He further argued that on 27.08.2015 at about 8.40 p.m. when said Ramesh Kumar while driving the jeep No.HR-08G/7477 reached near Village Kailram met with an accident due to appearing a stray cow before the jeep. The said Ramesh Kumar suffered injuries in the said accident and due to these injuries he died on 29.08.2015. He further argued that no post-mortem on the dead-body was conducted by the doctors at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. He further argued that a DDR No.30-A dt. 28.08.2015 was registered in Police Station Kalayat on the written complaint of employers vide letter No.2244 dt. 28.08.2015 of B.D. & P.O., Kalayat. He further argued that the jeep No.HR-08G/7477 as-well-as the driver of the jeep were insured with the Op No.1. He further argued that the said Rahul was adopted by deceased Ramesh Kumar on 02.08.2015 and the writing in this regard is Ex.CJ. He further argued that as the premium for the insurance of the driver of the jeep in question was deposited amounting to Rs.50/- but the Ops have not paid the insurance amount to the legal heirs. Ld. Counsel for the complainants submitted a catena of authorities cited in 2015(1) CLT page 196 titled as Sumitra Godara Vs. Branch Manager, LIC (Rajasthan SC); 2015(2) CLT page 601 titled as ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Vs. Harshdeep Kaur and others (Punjab SC); 2015(1) LJR page 30 titled as Karam Singh and others Vs. Jagsir Singh and others (P & H, High Court) and 2000(3) CCC page 360 titled as Vishin N.Khanchandani & another Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & another (SC). On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the deceased Ramesh Kumar was bachelor and his parents were already expired. He further argued that Rahul (minor) complainant is not his son and the story of his adoption is false and concocted story with malafide intention. He further argued that no legal document regarding adoption has been placed on the file by the complainants. He further argued that the complainants No.2 & 3 and Ops No.5 to 10 are not class-I legal heirs of the deceased. He further argued that no post-mortem report or FIR has been placed on the file. He further argued that the application under Employees’ Compensation Act is pending before the employer and this fact is admitted by the complainants in their complaint. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 to 4 argued that the relief sought by the complainants is not related to the Ops No.2 to 4 and the insurance amount is to be paid by the insurer company i.e. Op No.1. He further argued that the deceased Ramesh Kumar never gave any application or writing to Ops No.2 to 4 regarding the adoption of son and the adoption deed, if any, is false, bogus and manipulated.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that on 27.08.2015, the deceased Ramesh Kumar was driving the jeep No.HR-08G/7477 at the time of accident. It is also not disputed that the premium regarding the insurance of driver (IMT 28) of Rs.50/- has been deposited which means that the driver was insured with the Op No.1, as is clear from copy of insurance policy, Mark-CA and the insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount to the LRs of the driver. The dispute between the parties is that according to Op No.1, the complainants are not the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Kumar. The Ops No.1 to 4 creates suspicion regarding the writing of the adoption, Ex.CJ because the same is dated 02.08.2015 and Sh. Ramesh Kumar also died in the same month and the same is not a registered document. Moreover, the present complaint has been filed by the alleged adopted son Rahul as-well-as two brothers of the deceased Ramesh Kumar. This Forum is unable to decide who are the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Kumar. Ld. Counsel for Op No.1 admitted at the bar that the driver of the vehicle in question was insured for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as the premium of Rs.50/- has been deposited regarding the insurance of the driver. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the LRs of deceased Ramesh Kumar. This Forum is unable to decide that who are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh Kumar and only the succession certificate will decide who are the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Kumar. The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainants are not applicable to the facts of instant case.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op No.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per policy to the LRs of deceased Ramesh Kumar, subject to submission of succession certificate. No order as to costs. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of succession certificate. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.20.01.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
