Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 392
Instituted on : 24.08.2018.
Decided on : 14.11.2023
- Smt. Nisha age 19 years, w/o Late Ajay s/o Sh. Dhare,
- Rohit minor s/o Late Ajay s/o Sh.Dhare through his mother Smt. Nisha as next friend and legal guardian,
- Smt. Rajpati w/o Sh. Dhare.
All residents of village KharawarTeh. Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon.
…..….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. VipinPhougat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainants are that Ajay, husband of complainant no.1, father of complainant no.2 and son of complainant no.3 was owner of Motorcycle No.HR-12Y-7672 which was insured with opposite party vide policy no.87263122 for the period 26.09.2016 to 25.09.2017. It is further submitted that the said Ajay paid the premium against the policy including Rs.50/- against personal accident cover for owner/driver and he met with an accident on 24.06.2017 while driving the alleged motorcycle and died on the spot. FIR No.0258 dated 24.06.2017 was registered against the driver of Bus No.RJ-13PA-4213. Complainants being the legal heirs of deceased Ajay filed the claim before the opposite party and also submitted all the required documents. But till today the claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainants despite their repeated requests. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.100000/- against the death claim of Ajay and also to Rs.50,000/- as mental agony and harassment alongwith interest to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that on receipt of intimation,company has registered the claim and deputed an Investigator. On submission of investigation report, the company has written letter to the claimant vide letter dated 13.12.2018 to submit the following:-
(i) Letter of Indemnity bond notarized on Rs.100/- stamp,
(ii) Legal Heir Certificate given by competent authority(Magistrate, SD, Tehsildar).
(iii) NOC Notarized on a Rs.100/- stamp (signed by legal heirs, name of legal heirs in whose name payment is to be made).
Respondent insurance company has already sent the letter to complainant to submit the above documents to process the claim further. Complaint is premature. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.10.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed his evidence on dated 25.08.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case claim of the complainant has not been processed by the insurance company vide its letter Ex.R1 on the ground that complainant has not submitt some required documents with the insurance company and the sameare :
(i) Letter of Indemnity bond notarized on Rs.100/- stamp,
(ii) Legal Heir Certificate given by competent authority(Magistrate, SDTehsildar).
(iii) NOC Notarized on a Rs.100/- stamp (signed by legal heirs, name of legal heirs in whose name payment is to be made).
As per our opinion the indemnity bond is not required in PA Claim. Moreover all the 3 legal heirs have filed the present complaint, then why the legal heir certificate is required by the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant. Moreover consent/NOC is not required. We have minutely perused the investigation report Ex.OP3 issued by Sh. Manoj Kumar Agnihotri dated 17.09.2018 which has been placed on record by the opposite party. All the required details have been mentioned in this report. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. They have intentionally withhold the claim of the complainant without any justifiable reason. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per policy, PA cover for owner/driver is Rs.100000/-
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.08.2018 till its realization, to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees fivethousand only) as litigation expenses to the L.Rs. of deceased Ajay i.e. 30% of the awarded amount shall be paid to the mother of deceased namely Smt. Rajpati, 35% to the wife of deceased namely Smt. Nisha and 35% to the son of deceased namely Rohit, within one month from the date of decision. It is made clear that the share of Rohit(minor) son of deceased shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in the form of FDR and shall be paid to him on attaining the age of majority.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.11.2023
.......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
......................................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
...........................................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
