Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/513/2017

SUNITA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

AS AZAD

21 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               90/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     23-05-2015

 Date of Decision      :   12-07-2018

 

1.Sunita Devi,

W/O Late Sh.Shantu Singh,

2.Pooja Devi,

D/O Late Sh. Shantu Singh,

Both R/O Presently Mishriwala,

P.O.Domaa,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                   V/S

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Through its Manager,North Block,

Bahu Plaza,Jammu-180012.

                                                                                                                                                         Opposite party

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

Mr.A.S.Azad, Advocate for complainant, present

Mr.Dewakar Sharma,Advocate for OP,present.

 

                                             

                                                                   ORDER

                   Grievance of complainant is that deceased bachelor son of complainant No.1 and brother of complainant No.2 was travelling in vehicle, bearing registration No.JK11A-4856,which was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd.(For short OP),under Policy No.88544756 w.e.f.24-05-2014 to 23-05-2015 and the risk of the deceased was covered under Personal Accident coverage of Rs.1.00 lac(Annexure-1).That on,26-02-2015 the deceased Malkiyat  Singh (Alias Malkeet Singh) was coming from Uttarkashi to Jammu in vehicle No.JK11-A-4856,after attending a marriage and when the vehicle reached near Hathiari it skidded off from the road and fell into a deep gorge. That the deceased Malkiyat Singh alongwith three other persons died on spot and rest of two persons suffered grievous injuries (copies of FIR and Death certificate are annexed as Annexures,2&3).Complainant No.1 further submitted that she being an aged widow lady visited the office of OP repeatedly for claim of personal accident insurance of her deceased son, but did not yield any fruitful  result. Allegation of complainant is that despite submission of all requisite documents,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            OP did not settle the claim,therefore,complaint on hand. In the final analysis, complainant prays for reimbursement of sum of Rs.1.00 lac and in addition also prays for Rs.50,000/as damages and cost of litigation.

                      On the other hand,OP filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant in toto,went on to submit that complainant as alleged was a passenger to the accidental vehicle, as such no complaint by the complainant lie against the answering respondent as the complainant has no locus standi to file the same. That the complainant has deliberately and intentionally misrepresented the facts in order to mislead the Forum and also draw wrongful gains by filing false and frivolous litigation. As per policy terms and conditions, complainant has not received any physical disability so as to entitle him to claim compensation before this Forum. That the complainant has already filed a claim under 166 Motor Vehicle Act before MACT Jammu and has concealed this important fact from the Forum. The claimant in order to ensure unjust enrichment and also to deceive this Forum has filed this false claim to which it is not entitled legally and not permissible under law. It is submitted that the driver of insured vehicle was plying the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and on account of serious breach of term and conditions of insurance policy, the OP has repudiated the claim of complainant. That the insurer had taken all the necessary steps to co-operate the insured for smooth disposal of the OD case filed by the insured for the damages caused to the vehicle in the accident.

               Complainant  No.1 in support of her case has filed her own evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of certificate of registration, copy of driving licence,copy of certificate of insurance, copy of FIR, copy of Post Mortem Report and copy of Death certificate.

                  Although OP filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence, so, the right of OP to file evidence was closed vide order dated, 03-01-2018.Therfore, unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainant.

               We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                       On scanning the file, in our opinion the point which requires consideration is that as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP, in not reimbursing the Personal Accident Claim to the complainant.

                         In order to substantiate her allegations, complainant filed duly sworn evidence affidavit Complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP was granted ample opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version. Therefore, version of OP went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, therefore, same being bereft of legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

                       It is to be noted that the complainant, with the permission of Forum has been cross-examined by rival parties.Complainant in his cross-examination deposed that she had filed a complaint in MACT Jammu.

                    On the other hand, in support of her allegations complainant has placed on record copy of certificate of registration, copy of driving licence,copy of certificate of insurance, copy of FIR, copy of Post Mortem Report and copy of Death certificate. Therefore, we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for reimbursement of Personal Accident Cover of Rs.1.00 lac in view of supportive material placed on record.

             After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumers as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OPs are the service provider having failed in its statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumers. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

              It is however observed that the Insurance Company should not repudiate the claim of the policy holders on technical grounds as by repudiating the genuine insurance claims on such grounds looses the confidence of the policy holders on the Insurance Companies and it also gives rise to unnecessary litigation which in our opinion the Insurance Company should try to avoid the same.

                             Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of her grievance is allowed and OP is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1.00 lac as sum assured alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f.23-05-2015(i.e. from the date of filing of this complaint) till its realisation. The complainants are also entitled to litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The opposite parties shall comply the order within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default, till its realisation.Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

12-07-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member