BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 2 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 03.01.2017.
Date of Order: 10.12.2018.
Smt. Urmila widow of Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, resident of village Baliyali, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Magma House No. 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
2. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch First, Second and Third Floor, SCO Sector-3, HSIIDC, Industries Estate, Karnal-132001.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Miss Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri N. P. Tanwar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that her husband was driver by profession. It is further alleged that her husband was serving on the vehicle of Shri Parveen Kumar son of Shri Jagdish, resident of village Legha Bhanan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani, who was owner of Alto Car No.HR16M-9364, which was insured with the OPs w.e.f. 2.8.2015 till 1.8.2016 vide Police No.00161000003/4101/100571. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant returning to his village Baliyali, all of sudden live high power wire broke down and fell on the Alto car, as a result of which the husband of the complainant died on the spot due to electric shock. It is further alleged that as per the insurance policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was also covered under personal accident for Rs.2 lacs each. It is further alleged that the complainant submitted her claim with the OPs along with all the relevant documents, but the claim has not been paid by the OPs to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice dated 10.10.2016 upon the OPs for the payment of claim, but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint.
2. OPs on appearance filed the contested written statement and contested the claim of the complainant on the sole ground that there is no insurance coverage of the driver of the vehicle and only the owner while driving his vehicle is covered. It is further alleged that there is no contract of Insurance regarding the coverage of driver. It is further alleged that Shri Bajrang Lal was not under insurance coverage and insurance company is not liable to pay the claim. It is further alleged that the complainant has never applied or submitted any application to the OPs regarding the alleged claim of the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions alongwith the documents i.e. Annexure C-1 copy of FIR, Annexure C-2 copy of PMR, Annexure C-3 copy of insurance policy, Annexure C-4 copy of RC, Annexure C-5 copy of DL of Bajrang Lal, Annexure C-6 Postal Receipt, Annexure C-7 copy of legal notice and Annexure R1 copy of insurance policy, Annexure R2 copy of RC, Annexure R3 copy of DL of Bajrang Lal, Annexure R4 to R6 copy of private car insurance policy wording/terms/conditions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file carefully.
5. The sole contention of learned counsel for the OPs is that there is no insurance coverage of the driver of the vehicle and only the owner while driving his vehicle is covered under the policy. Ld. counsel for the OPs placed his reliance upon case titled as Sajida & Ors. Vs Sabnam & Anr., FAO 738 of 2013, decided on 23.11.2016 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana), case titled as NIC Vs Hari Mohan and another, FAO 5947 of 2012 decided on 24.10.2016 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) and case titled as UIAC Vs Sumitra & another, FAO 5832 of 2011 decided on 5.5.2017 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. We have given a considerable thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the OPs and in our view the arguments of counsel for OPs has no substance at all. The sole arguments of the counsel for the OPs is that there is no insurance coverage of the driver of the vehicle and only the owner while driving his vehicle is covered under the policy. The plea of the counsel for OPs is not tenable, because there is a clause in policy itself that “LL to paid Driver IMT 28” and OPs have received Rs. 50/- separately for the insurance cover of private driver. The policy is attached as Annexure C3 by complainant and Annexure R1 by OPs. Thus, the citations placed by ld. counsel for the OPs are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, because in this case there is a clause in the policy itself for the insurance cover of paid driver. The fact that the husband of the complainant was paid driver of the owner of the Alto car is not disputed by the OPs and thus, the deceased Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma is covered under the policy in question.
7. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the complainant is entitled to the sum insured and OPs is directed to:-
i. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
- pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental
agony, physical harassment and hardship
iii. To pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10.12.2018.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
