Complaint No: 131 of 2020.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2020.
Date of order: 01.04.2024.
Anoop Singh Son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Chamari Jogi Cheema, Post Office Qadian District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143516.
…........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Liberty General Insurance Ltd., SCO – 9, Burj Punjab, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar – 143001, through its Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., through its Manager, Near Dr. Johal Hospital, Batala, District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143505.
….Opposite parties
Complaint u/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.
Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Anoop Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur i.e. wife of complainant purchased car from Novelty Cars Pvt. Ltd. Jiwanwal Babri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, Hyundai i-20 SPORTS + CRDI having Number PB-06-AV-0544 vide invoice dated 09.05.2019 for Rs.8,36,903/- after obtaining loan from HDFC Bank i.e. the opposite party No. 2. This amount of Rs.8,36,903/- excludes insurance policy amount and other expenditure. It is pleaded that the car of wife of the complainant was duly insured with the opposite party No. 1 and car as well as Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur wife of the complainant covers under this policy vide insurance invoice No. 1113800154300000 covering period from 09.05.2019 to 09.05.2020. The wife of the complainant died on dated 29.04.2020 and her insurance cover was Rs.15 Lacs which the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay to the complainant being husband and legal heir of late Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 so many times and requested the opposite party No. 1 to pay the insurance amount of his wife to him, but the opposite party No. 1 is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The insurance premium paid to the opposite party No. 1 is Rs.32,238/-, but till today the opposite party No. 1 has not paid the insurance amount to the complainant. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It was mandatory on the part of the opposite party No. 1 to make the payment of the insurance amount in dispute, but the opposite party failed to do so, as such there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. It is further pleaded that the complainant has requested the opposite parties so many times to admit his genuine claim, but the opposite parties remained putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also served a Legal Notice dated 21.08.2020 requesting to make the payment in question and not to deduct and receive any installment as detailed in notice, but they did not care for that although they received the notice. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party No.1 to pay the insurance amount of Rs.15 Lacs of wife of the complainant, to the complainant alongwith interest and also pay Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment, pain, suffering and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and opposite party No. 2 may be directed not to deduct and receive any installment by using force or other mode of recovery from the complainant as the client of the opposite party No. 2 is dead and the complainant may be given any other relief to which he is found entitled by this Hon'ble Commission, in the interest of justice and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that the matter of the fact is that the pleadings of the complainant are vague one. In the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the car of wife of complainant namely Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur was insured with the answering opposite party No. 1 and wife of the complainant was died on dated 29.04.2020 and insurance cover was of Rs.15,00,000/- and the complainant is entitled for the said amount. In the whole complaint the complainant, no where mentioned the fact that how the death of his wife took place. It is further pleaded that the said cover of Rs.15,00,000/- was available even otherwise, only under personal accident cover. In the present case, if no accident took place, then no question of paying any such amount arises. Even no FIR or any DDR has been produced on the file. Even the cause of death has not been mentioned in the present complaint and as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Further no such claim has ever been filed before the insurance co. and as such, no question of deciding any such claim arises and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complaint is pre-mature as no claim alongwith relevant documents have ever been provided to the insurance co. No claim number has been mentioned in the complaint and this fact clearly shows that the complainant never provided the relevant documents nor provided any claim form and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party / insurance co. and the present complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Anoop Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 alongwith complaint.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has placed on file Self-Declaration of Ms. Shraddha P Kinare, (Authorized Signatory, Liberty Gen. Ins. Ltd., Mumbai) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith reply.
7. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
8. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that Smt.Sukhjinder Kaur wife of the complainant had purchased car No. PB-06-AV-0544 and the said car was insured with opposite party No.1 from 09.05.2019 to 09.05.2020. It is further argued that wife of the complainant had paid premium of Rs.32,238/- which included the amount of personal accident on account of death of registered owner. It is further argued that wife of the complainant died on 29.04.2020 but the opposite parties have failed to pay the amount of Rs.15 Lacs on account of personal accident claim.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of personal accident is payable only in case of accidental death of registered owner but in the present case complainant has not proved that his wife has did due to the accident. It is further argued that complainant has failed to lodge any claim with the opposite party No.1. Accordingly, present complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Opposite party No.2 remained exparte.
12. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the record.
13. Perusal of file shows that except legal notice Ex.C4 the complainant has failed to place on record any document to prove this fact that claim was ever lodged with the opposite party No.1.
14. As such without going into merit of the case the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the complainant to lodge the claim with the opposite party No.1 alongwith documents regarding the death of Smt.Sukhjinder Kaur within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall settle the claim within 30 days after receiving the said documents from the complainant. No order as to costs.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
April 01, 2024 Member.
*YP*
