BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.263/2016.

Date of instt.10.10.2016. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 09.10.2017.

Pargat Singh son of Mahender Singh son of Hari Singh, resident of village Tamaspura, Tehsil  and District Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                             Versus

1.Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Opposite Maruti Suzuki Agency, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through it Branch Manager.

2.Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., Megma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkatta- 700016 through its Manager Director.

..Opposite parties.    

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before             Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                        Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :         Sh.D.P.Jakhal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for the OPs.

  ORDER

The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that Late Mahender Singh, father of the complainant obtained a policy from the OPs for his tractor make Escort Farmtrac-35 issued on 04.03.2014 for the period from 28.02.2014 to midnight of 27.02.2015. He paid a premium under the head “B-Liability” Basic – TP Rs.1750/- Compulsory Pa to owner – driver-2 Laces Rs.100/-, under WC Act –Driver/Cleaner/ Employees-IMT 28 Rs.50/-, Total Liability premium Rs.1900/-, Total premium Rs.7553/-, Service Tax (including education cess education cess and higher education cess) Rs.933.55, Total amount of premium Rs.8487/-. In this policy the insured had also paid premium under the head “A-OWN Da,age” and basic cover, opposite total Basic –OC Rs.5,653. Therefore the father of the complainant was consumer of the OPs and after his death the complainant being legal heir of Mahender Singh has become the consumer of OPs. It is further submitted that Mahender Singh met with an accident on 26.12.2014 on Ratia Road near Hanuman Mandir when he was returning to his village Tamaspura on the above said insured tractor after putting his paddy crops for sale in Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad. After accident Sh.Mahender Singh was admitted in the General Hospital, Fatehabad from where he was referred MAMC Agroha and on the way to Agorha he was expired. Since the legal heir of the deceased life assured were ignorant of legal proceeding as such the post-mortem on the body of Mahender Singh was not got conducted. However a report regarding the accident was got recorded in Police-Post Gurunanak Pura, Fatehabad on 06.01.2015. It is further submitted that the complainant and other legal heirs of the life assured Mahender Singh applied in the office of OPs for compensation as per insurance policy. However, the OPs did not accept the claim and vide letter dated 18.05.2015 the claim of the complainant was denied on the ground that as per police report there were two people sitted on the tractor at the time of accident whereas the sitting capacity of the insured vehicle  is one. Hence, claim not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. Vide the above said letter the OPs also sought comments from the complainant within 15 days in respect of his claim, failing which the OPs shall presume that the complainant have no comments to offer and OP shall proceed accordingly. In response to letter dated 18.05.2015 issued by the OPs, the complainant submitted a reply on 05.06.2015. It is also further submitted that the insured tractor got damaged on account of accident and an amount of Rs.31,997/- was spent by the complainant for repair and purchase of spare parts of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of death of the owner of insured vehicle and a sum of Rs.31,997/- on account of purchase of spare parts and repair of the insured vehicle. The complainant further prayed for compensation suffered by him due to mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice the OPs appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been raised, that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the same is premature. No claim has been lodged with the OPs by the complainant regarding death of Mehander Singh owner of insured tractor and only own damage claim has been lodged with the OPs. The other preliminary objection raised in the written statement are that there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of company or its official; that the death of Mahender Singh is not an accidental; that there is a delay in giving intimation to the OPs regarding the accident; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits it has been submitted by the OPs that death of Mahender Singh in the present case is not an accidental death. There is no post-mortem report, medical certificate, report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. showing the death of Mahender Singh to be caused on account of accident. Moreover there is no DDR or FIR regarding the alleged accident. It is further submitted that the complainant after a lapse of 70 days moved an application before the SDM, Fatehabad regarding the occurrence. The report regarding the accident is procured by the complainant in collusion with police authority in order to get personal accident claim. It is further submitted by the OPs that the surveyor appointed by the OPs vide his report dated 26.03.2015 has reported that the tractor in question was roadworthy and untouched. Moreover the tractor has a sitting capacity of one person whereas as per report of police at the time of accident two persons were sitting on the tractor. Therefore the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the life assured. It is also submitted that no bill of purchase of spare parts/repairs have been produced by the complainant to the OPs, therefore the claim for the alleged damages is not payable. It is specifically denied by the OPs that the tractor was damaged and the same was repaired by the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant is not entitled for Rs.2 lacs on account of death of owner of insured vehicle and Rs.31,997/- on account of damage of insured vehicle. The OPs have further prayed for dismissal of the present complaint being premature and without any merit.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C1 wherein he has affirmed the averments made in the complaint. In support of his case the complainant also tendered in evidence documents as Annexure C2 and Annexure C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand Sunil Gupta, Authorized Signatory of OPs filed an affidavit as Annexure R1 and thereafter the OPs closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents placed on the record of the case file. Vide the present complaint the complainant has mainly sought the following two reliefs:-

1. That the complainant is entitled for payment of Rs.31,997/- from OPs on account of damage to the insured tractor due to accident.

2. That complainant is entitled for payment of Rs.2 lacs from OPs on account of death of the owner of the insured vehicle as per policy dated 04.03.2014

                   To prove the relief  No.1 the complainant has relied upon the document Annexure C-7 i.e. quotation of Sai Om Tractor wherein the Sai Om Tractor has submitted his offer for selling spare parts of the tractor. No other evidence has been produced by the complainant that he has spent Rs.31,997/- for repair of the insured tractor which suffered damages on account of accident. We are of the considered opinion that Annexure C-7 is not cogent and convincing piece of evidence to prove that the tractor in question suffered damages on account of accident occurred on 26.12.2014 and he has spent Rs.31,997/- for repair of the damaged vehicle. On the other hand the OPs have taken plea that as per the surveyor report dated 26.03.2015 the tractor was untouched and roadworthy. Therefore the above-said relief of the complainant is not proved and the same is hereby dismissed.

                   Regarding the second relief the OPs have taken a stand that the relief for payment of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of insured vehicle owner is premature and no claim regarding the same has been submitted by the complainant in the Claim Form. Therefore the said claim has not been decided by the OPs. The above said contention of the OPs find support from claim statement furnished by complainant wherein the claim for loss of own damage has only been filed and there is no mention of claim for owners death of the insured vehicle.

5.                Keeping in view the above fact, we are of the considered opinion that relief regarding payment of Rs. 2 lacs sought by complainant is premature. Therefore the complainant is given liberty to file a claim with regard to payment of Rs.2 lacs on account of death of the insured vehicle owner with the OPs and in case the claim is filed the same will be decided by the OPs within one month of the receipt of the claim. In case the complainant is aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the OPs in that eventuality the complainant will be at liberty to challenge the same afresh before this Forum. The complaint is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 09.10.2017.

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

             (Ansuya Bishnoi)  (R.S.Panghal)    District Consumer Disputes                       

     Member                 Member           Redressal Forum,Fatehabad