Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/149/2020

BHATERI - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Bajar

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 149 of 2020

                                                                Date of Institution    :  09.10.2020

                                                                Date of decision:      : 28.03.2024  

 

1. Bhateri-widow
2. Maya Devi-daughter
3. Geeta-daughter
4. Sushil-daughter and
5. Kavita-daughters of Late Hawa Singh, all residents of village Lohani Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                        ...Complainants. 

 

                                                    Versus.

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th & 5^th Floor, IFFCO Tower, Plot NO.3, Sector-29, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

 

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. P.K. Bajar, Advocate for complainants.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that husband of complainant no.1 Hawa Singh was registered owner of a motorcycle Splendor Plus bearing regn. No.HR-16S-1679. The vehicle was got insured for a period from 05.07.2019 to 04.07.2020.  It has submitted that Hawa Singh expired in a roadside accident on 02.10.2019 while driving the said vehicle, in the area of Titani Minor, District Bhiwani. In this regard, DD No.18 dated 02.10.2019 under section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at P.S. Jui Kalan. It is alleged that under the insurance policy, Hawa Singh was compulsorily insured under personal accidental insurance policy and also paid premium for it. It is submitted that representation to the OP was made on 25.09.2020 through registered post qua the claim under the policy but of no use. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into mental and physical harassment besides huge monetary loss.  In the end, prayed for issuance of directions to OP to pay Rs.15.00 lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of issuing the policy till payment. Further to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards harassment besides Rs.22,000/-  for litigation expenses.  Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed their separate written statements raising preliminary qua complaint is false and frivolous and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle bearing regn. No. HR-16S-1679 was insured with it for the relevant period but Hawa Singh (deceased) did not opt for a Personal Accident cover and no premium was paid against it, hence, the answering OP has no liability towards the claim to complainants. It is submitted that no copy of DD, RC, Insurance Policy and PMR have been provided to the OP. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant,  affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 were tendered and closed the evidence on 03.08.2022.

4.                 On the other side, affidavit of Mr. Devendra Kumar, authorized person of Op as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 were tendered in evidence and closed the same on 24.08.2023.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                 The rival contention between the parties to the complaint is that complainant alleging that deceased Hawa Singh was covered for Personal Accident cover and for this purpose premium was paid but on the other side, OP has contended that no such premium was paid for Personal Accident cover however, the vehicle was insured for the relevant period.

7.                 Therefore, to resolve the controversy, we have gone through the insurance policy document (Ex. R-1 & Annexure C-1) on case file. A careful perusal of insurance policy reveals that no premium for Personal Accident cover has been paid by the owner of the motorcycle. Further, from perusal of DD (Annexure C-3) and PMR (Annexure C-2), it is evident that the cause of death in this case is electrocution  and  thus it is not motor vehicular accident. As such, we are of considered view that the complainants are not entitled to get any claim from OP insurance company. Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 28.03.2024