Haryana

StateCommission

A/1134/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANTA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

KIRTI KUMAR

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                     First Appeal No  :   1134 & 1268 of 2016

Date of Institution:  29.11.2016 & 27.12.2016

                                     Date of Decision:   05.02.2018

 

 

First Appeal No.1134 of 2016

 

 

 

1.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Branch Office at CIFCL, 2^nd Floor, Shiva Complex, in front of S.P. Residence Narnaul, Haryana -123008.

 

2.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, branch Office, Second Floor, SCO No.9, Sector 8, Brass Market, Rewari, Haryana -123401.

 

3.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Dera House, 1^st Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

Versus

 

1.      Kanta Devi wife of late Sh. Charan Singh son of Sh. Mal Singh, resident  of Village and Post Office Bhojawas, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Dera House, 1^st Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.4

 

 

First Appeal No.1268 of 2016

 

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Dera House, 1^st Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.4

Versus

 

1.      Kanta Devi wife of late Sh. Charan Singh son of Sh. Mal Singh, resident  of Village and Post Office Bhojawas, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Branch Office at CIFCL, 2^nd Floor, Shiva Complex, in front of S.P. Residence Narnaul, Haryana -123008.

 

3.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, branch Office, Second Floor, SCO No.9, Sector 8, Brass Market, Rewari, Haryana -123401.

 

4.      Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Dera House, 1^st Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by: Shri Varun Katyal, Advocate for Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

                   Shri Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for Smt. Kanta Devi-complainant

                   Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited.

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.1134 of 2016 filed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and its functionaries-opposite parties No.1 to 3 (for short, ‘Financer’) and 1268 of 2016 filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.4 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) because they have arisen out of common order dated October 07^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.43 of 2015. 

2.        Charan Singh, deceased husband of Smt. Kanta Devi-complainant purchased vehicle Mahindra Bolero Pik Up make bearing registration No.HR66A-5186.  The vehicle was financed by the Financer. The Financer got insured Charan Singh with the Insurance Company under Group Personal Accident Policy (Exhibit C-3) for the period February 25^th, 2014 to February 24^th, 2017.  Charan Singh died on May 09^th, 2014.  Charan Singh was paying the installments of loan to the Financer regularly.  After his death, his wife, that is, complainant also paid the installments regularly as pleaded by her.  The Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.  She filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order.  The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “6.     Therefore, keeping in view the discussions made above, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with costs and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed:-

          “1.     To refund the amount of installments received from the complainant after the death of Charan Singh alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of receipt till realization.

          2.      To return the price of the vehicle in question to the complainant.

          3.      To issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant. 

          However, opposite party No.4 is also directed to pay the amount of installments to the opposite parties No.2 & 3 accrued after the death of Charan Singh.  Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.”

 

4.      The pivotal issue in this case is as to whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, the amount for which Charan Singh was insured with the Insurance Company or not?

5.      The Financer got insured Charan Singh with the Insurance Company under Group Personal Accident Master Policy.  The amount insured was Rs.3,00,000/- but that was on account of death due to accident.  Nominee of the insured was the Financer. 

6.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the Financer in case insured would have died on account of accident.  Since the insured died natural death, so, question of paying Rs.3,00,000/- to the Financer does not arise.

7.      Learned counsel for the Financer has urged that the vehicle was repossessed by the Financer because there was default in making payment of installments.  The vehicle was sold to Rs.3,50,000/-, which was adjusted against the amount due towards the complainant.

8.      On the contra, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that Charan Singh died due to cardiac arrest, which can be termed as accident and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount to the Financer. 

9.      The submission of learned counsel for the complainant is not acceptable in view of the fact that in the insurance policy, definition of ‘Accident’ has been prescribed, which reads as under:-

          ‘Accident means a sudden, unforeseen and unexpected physical event caused by external, violent and visible means.’             

 

10.    In view of above, it is not possible to hold that Charan Singh died due to accident rather he died on account heart attack.

11.    It has been clearly stated in the insurance policy that coverage of Rs.3,00,000/- was in case of accidental death and not otherwise. In this view of the matter, the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained.  Both the appeals are accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeals be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pronounced 05.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK