DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.55/02.05.2008 Decided on : 24.12.2008 1.Gulab Kaur W/o Sh.Tota Singh S/o Sh.Ishar Singh , Resident of village Fatta Maluka, Tehsil Sardulgarh and District Mansa. 2.Tota Singh S/o Sh.Ishar Singh ,S/o Sh.Arjan Singh Resident of village Fatta Maluka, Tehsil Sardulgarh and District Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, branch Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager, Arora Vansh Dharamshala, Fatehabad (Haryana). 2.Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hissar (Haryana) ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Gurnam Singh Dhaliwal, counsel for the complainants. Sh.S.P.Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Smt.Gulab Kaur and Sh.Tota Singh, residents of village Fatta Maluka, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'). As per the averments, made in the complaint, Partap Singh, son of the complainants, secured insurance policy bearing No. Contd......2 : 2 : 174426419 dated 22.11.2005 from Life Insurance Corporation of India in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, through its Agent, namely Mr.Chopra, at Sardulgarh. The son of the complainants, named above, died in road accident, on account of which F.I.R. No.15 has been registered on 27.1.2006, at Police Station, Sardulgarh, under Section 304A IPC. Since the complainants, are the parents of the policy holder, therefore, they are consumers, under the opposite parties, and being his legal heirs, they are entitled, to receive the amount, of insurance policy. The opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants, but remaining amount on account of accident benefit, has not been paid inspite of service of notice dated 7.3.2008 by them upon the opposite parties. Due to in action on the part of the officials of the opposite parties, in making the remaining payment, the complainants have undergone mental and physical harassment, for which opposite parties, are liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, as compensation alongwith costs of filing the complaint. As they have failed, to honor the claim of the complainant, hence this complaint. 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint; that basic amount, on account of insurance claim, has been paid to the complainants in the sum of Rs.50,183/-, including bonus, vide cheque No.125584 dated 26.9.2006. As the complainants, have failed to produce the driving licence of their deceased son and life assured, therefore, their claim cannot be settled and that complainants, have concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum, hence their complaint is liable tobe dismissed. On merits, it is admitted, that the deceased, son of the complainants, secured policy in question, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on 12.11.2005. It is submitted, that factum of death of deceased son of the complainants, and registration of F.I.R., on that account, are correct as per record. It is Contd......3 : 3 : contended, that reply, dated 7.3.2008, to the legal notice, has been given to the complainants, by the opposite parties, but they have failed to furnish the driving licence of their deceased son, to enable the opposite parties to settle the claim. As such, they are not entitled, to payment of any more amount, on account of insurance policy, or compensation and costs. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, Tota Singh filed his affidavit Ext.C-3, and counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence, copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-5 before closing evidence, on their behalf. On the other hand, learned counsel, for the opposite parties, has tendered copy of reply Ext.OP-1 given to the complainant in respect of legal notice served upon them, before filing of the instant complaint by them, and closed evidence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 5. To begin with learned counsel for the complainants, Sh. Gurnam Singh Dhariwal, Advocate has submitted that action of opposite parties, of withholding the amount payable, on account of accidental claim to the complainants, is not justified, because, neither rules nor bye-laws on the subject, envisages production of driving licence of the policy holder in case of personal insurance. Learned counsel has argued that complainants, have suffered mentally and physically, on account of delay in settlement of accidental claim, by the opposite parties, as such, they deserve to be compensated, in terms of money and they are entitled to payment of costs incurred by them, for filing of the instant complaint. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, has, at the outset, submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, as such, Contd.......4 : 4 : complaint is liable to be dismissed on this technical ground alone. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that reply to the notice served by the complainants upon them, has been given by the Opposite Parties, at Mansa, as such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. 8. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because, as per provisions of Sub Section 2(c) of complaint under the Act can be instituted, in District Forum, within local limits of whose jurisdiction cause of action wholly or in part arises. The averments made in the complaint regarding issuance of insurance cover note, in the name of deceased son of the complainants, by the Agent of the opposite parties at Mansa, have not been specifically, controverted in the reply filed by the opposite parties, as such, they are deemed to have been accepted, to be correct, by the opposite parties. Moreover, reply, Ext.OP-1, to the legal notice, served by the complainants upon the opposite parties, before filing of instant compliant, has been addressed, to the counsel for the complainants, at Mansa, asking them, to furnish the driving licence, for settlement of accident claim of the deceased, policy holder. Therefore, cause of action has partly accrued to the complainants, to file the instant complaint, at Mansa. As such, we are unable, to concede to the submission, made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that Insurance Company has no obligation to honour the accidental claim, if life assured does not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Learned counsel has argued that, delay has taken place in settlement of the claim, due to the lapse on the part of the complainants, to furnish the driving licence of their deceased son, as such, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties, to pay them any amount, on account of insurance claim, compensation and costs incurred if any for filing the Contd.......5 : 5 : complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 1995(III) CPJ 385 Udham Singh versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.,wherein a truck, insured with the opposite parties, met with an accident and its driver failed to produce the driving licence, on account of which the insurance claim preferred by him was repudiated and it was held, by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission that there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel has further relied upon 2008(I) SC 1 CPJ New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Versus Prabhu Lal, wherein driver of the vehicle involved in accident has been holding licence to ply light motor vehicle and he was not entitled to ply heavy motor vehicle. The Insurance claim was repudiated, by the Insurance Company on that ground and complaint was dismissed, by the Consumer Forum. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that complainant, is not entitled to payment of compensation, on the basis of evidence, adduced by the Insurance Company, because driver of the vehicle involved, in the accident, did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Learned counsel has argued, that in view of ratio of judgments delivered in the above cited authorities, complaint is liable, to be dismissed with costs. 10. The factum of accident, is not disputed by the opposite parties in the written version filed by them. The said fact is otherwise proved by the copies of documents, including F.I.R. registered under Section 304A IPC, on account of death of deceased son of the complainants in road accident. Admittedly, the opposite parties have also made payment of basic amount of insurance policy alongwith bonus on account of death of deceased son of the complainants. The plea of the opposite parties is that complainants, have failed to produce the driving licence of the insured, because of which their claim cannot be settled. The perusal of copy of insurance policy, Ext.C-1, goes to show, that there is no condition, for production of driving licence in case death of insured takes place in Contd.......6 : 6 : accident. Learned counsel has failed to draw our attention, to any rule or bye-law on the subject under which production of driving licence, of the insured, may be condition precedent for honouring the accident claim, of the deceased, to his legal heirs, after his death. In the instant case, insurance cover has been secured by the deceased, son of the complainants on his life, whereas in cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the vehicles, before they met with accidents, had been insured and not drivers plying them, and the cases have been filed by the aggrieved persons, under the provisions of this Act and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore, there is clear distinct between the facts of the case in hand and those of cases, cited by the learned counsel, for the opposite parties. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that ratio of judgments delivered in the above referred cases, does not advance the case of the opposite parties. 11. The complainants are parents of the deceased policy holder, who are entitled, to inherit the property left behind by him. As such, they are consumers, within the purview of the Act, under the opposite parties. The opposite parties, have failed to honour the claim of the complainants inspite of notice, served upon them, without any reasonable cause. Therefore, it is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainants have suffered, mentally and physically, due to delay in settlement of accidental claim, without any justifiable cause by the opposite parties, and have to incur expenses, for filing the claim. As such, the opposite parties have no option, but to make the payment of, the amount due on account of accidental claim, and to suitably compensate the legal heirs of the insured and to pay reasonable amount to them, on account of expenses incurred by them in approaching this Forum for the relief, prayed for which might have been settled, by the opposite parties, without resorting to litigation. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint, and direct the opposite parties, to make payment, to the complainants, on account of Contd.......7 : 7 : accidental claim, in terms of rules, on the subject, and insurance cover, issued in the name of life assured. The opposite parties are burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants, due to delay in settlement of their claim, and further pay Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs of litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainants, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt, of the copy of the order, failing which, complainants, would also be entitled, to receive future interest @ 9% per annum, after expiry of stipulated period, till date of actual payment. 13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 24.12.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
