Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 31.
Instituted on : 23.01.2018.
Decided on : 08.11.2019.
Smt. Saria wife of Late Sh. Jagbir Singh son of Sh. Jhunda r/o village Baliyana Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Hafed District Office, SCOI No.19-20, Ground Floor, Karnal and having branch office at SCF 23, 2nd Floor, Subhash Park, near Indusind Bank, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.K.Munjal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that husband of complainant was registered owner of scooty bearing registration No. HR-12AA-3930 which was insured from opposite party for the period from 22.01.2016 to 21.01.2017 for policy no.1-4B59QVDP400, policy no.96148666. That on 05.09.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident while it was being driven by the husband of complainant and he died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. FIR No.218 dated 5.9.2016 was also registered in PS Israna. That after the death of her husband, complainant informed the opposite party and requested to make the payment of claim amount under the said policy amounting to Rs.1 lac because the risk of owner/driver was covered under the policy and premium was also paid for the same but till today, the amount of claim has not been paid by the opposite party. A legal notice dated 28.11.2017 was also sent to the opposite party but in vain. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.100000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of incident till the date of actual realization and Rs.50000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the company deputed M/s Prism Insurance Consultants for investigation of the personal accident claim and documents collection of this case and he has informed that insured wife and son were not aware whether insured holds a valid driving licence or not on the date of accident. Insurance company has sent the reminders to the complainant vide letter dated 04.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 for submitting the copy of driving licence of insured , NOC from other legal heir, letter of indemnity bond etc. but the complainant till date has not submitted the documents. Hence the complaint is pre-mature. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated15.03.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.06.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complaint is pre-mature as the complainant has not submitted the copy of driving licence of insured(Jagbeer), NOC from other legal heirs, letter of indemnity bond etc. despite the repeated requests and reminders. Opposite party has also placed on record copy of terms and conditions of the policy and as per Section –III-Personal accident cover for owner-driver, sub section C(b) of the policy, it is submitted that the compensation shall be payable to the insured/legal heirs subject to the condition that: “The owner-driver holds an effective driving licence, in accordance with the provision of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident. Opposite party has sent letters Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 to the complainant to submit the documents i.e. letter of indemnity bond, NOC from other legal heirs and copy of Driving license of deceased. But till date complainant has not submitted the alleged documents.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complainant is directed submit the alleged documents with the opposite party within 30 days and in turn opposite party is directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days from the date of submission of documents by the complainant. Complaint is disposed of accordingly with the observation that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the opposite parties, he shall be at liberty to file the fresh complaint. Original documents/exhibits submitted by both the parties shall be returned to them and photocopy of the same be placed on record.
8. 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:
08.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
