Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/59

Nirmal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager New Indian Insurance co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Parmjeet Singh

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      59 of 2018

Date of Institution:  04.04.2018

Date of Decision :    17.02.2020

 

1. Nirmal Kaur, aged 56 years wife of Kala Ram r/o Mohalla Mahikhana, Faridkot.
2. Ravinder Kaur wife of Mangat Ram son of Kala Ram,
3. Prabhjot Singh Minor aged about 5 years,
4. Sukhman Kaur minor aged about 11 months through her mother Ravinder Kaur r/o Mohalla Mahikhana, Faridkot.

                                                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Baba Farid Market,  In Front of Kotwali, Faridkot.
2. M.D. New India Assurance Company Limited, 87 M G Road, Fort Mumbai-400001.                                                                        

.............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sandeep Khosla, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

cc no.-59 of 2018

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make claim payment of Rs. 14,00,000/- alongwith interest alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Mangat Ram deceased son of complainant got insured his truck bearing no.PB-04V-3652 from OP-1 through their agent vide Policy No.36070431160100002093 for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017 for sum assured of Rs.14,00,000/-. Deceased son of complainant requested the agent of OP-1 to also cover the risk of driver alongwith truck and paid about Rs.37,000/-for insurance purpose to OPs. Said agent assured his deceased son that in case of death of driver, Insurance Company would be liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/-to the family members of deceased/driver. It is submitted that deceased son of complainant was a truck driver and while coming back from Rajkot to Batala, he died in an unfortunate accident in Satrava, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan during his treatment in Gandhi Hospital at Jodhpur on 12.04.2017. His mother/complainant approached OPs and intimated them regarding his death and requested them to process and pay the insurance

cc no.-59 of 2018

claim on account of death of her son, but OP-1 denied that that no such insurance of her son was ever done by them. ld counsel for complainant asserted that complainant is willing to perform all kinds of formalities for obtaining the insurance claim, but OPs did not pay any heed to her genuine requests.  Even legal notice issued by complainant bore no fruit, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief of  insurance claim of Rs.14 lacs. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                  On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant is not their consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and even complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint as till today, complainant has not lodged any claim regarding death of Mangat Ram with them and complaint filed by complainant is premature. Complainant is required to lodge the claim with Ops and it would settled after scrutinization of all documents. Moreover,

cc no.-59 of 2018

no post mortem report or copy of FIR or Police Report is placed on record by complainant regarding alleged accident. It is further averred that legal heirs of deceased Mangat Ram are not impleaded as party in present complaint. It is asserted that lengthy evidence is required in present case, which cannot be concluded in the summary proceedings of this Forum and this case is required to be referred to Civil Court for proper adjudication. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that as per Insurance Policy in question, truck was insured with OPs and death of driver cum owner was covered under the policy, but at the time of alleged accident, Mangat Ram was not driver cum owner. There is no proof that deceased Mangat Ram died in any accident, rather he died due to snake bite. All the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong, incorrect, false and frivolous. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-71 and then, closed the evidence.

 

 

cc no.-59 of 2018

6                                    In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for Opposite Parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Sharma as Ex OP-1  and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                    We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                     Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that deceased son of complainant got insured his truck with OPs and he also made request to agent of OPs to insure the driver and thus, risk to life of driver cum owner was also covered under this policy and he paid Rs.37,000/-for this purpose. While coming home from Kolkata, her son died in an accident and thereafter, complainant approached Ops and requested them to pay insurance claim on account of death of her son, but they did not pay her genuine insurance claim. Even legal notice also served no purpose. grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not paid anything, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                                              To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that as per Insurance Policy in question, truck of deceased son of complainant was insured with them.

cc no.-59 of 2018

Insurance Policy also covered the risk of death of driver cum owner under the policy, but at the time of alleged accident, Mangat Ram deceased was not driver cum owner. There is no proof that deceased Mangat Ram died in any accident, rather he died due to snake bite. Ld counsel for OPs further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and complainant is not their consumer. Moreover, complainant has not lodged any claim regarding death of her son Mangat Ram with them and present complaint is premature. She is required to lodge the claim with Ops and it would settled after scrutinization of all documents. Even, no post mortem report or copy of FIR or Police Report is placed on record by complainant regarding alleged accident. Under the Policy in question, the owner/driver of the truck was covered only in case of injuries or death occurred in motor vehicle accident while driving the truck/vehicle in question. No injuries or death in any other case is covered under the Policy in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                                      The case of the complainant is that truck of son of complainant was insured with OPs and under insurance policy in question risk to life of driver cum owner was also covered.  Son of complainant died in an accident and after his death, complainant approached OPs and made request for payment of insurance claim on account of death of her son, but despite repeated requests and issuance of legal notice, OPs did not pay single penny on account of insurance claim

cc no.-59 of 2018

for death of her son, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to her. On the other hand, Ops admitted that truck was insured with OPs and death of driver cum owner was also covered under the policy, but he has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that at the time of alleged accident, Mangat Ram was not driving the said vehicle. Under the Policy in question, the owner/driver of the truck was covered only in case of injuries or death occurred in motor vehicle accident while driving the truck/vehicle in question. No injuries or death in any other case is covered under the Policy in question. Mangat Ram did not die in any accident, rather he died due to snake bite. No Post mortem report or copy of Police Report or FIR is placed on record to prove that death of Mangat Ram occurred in any accident. As per terms and conditions of the policy, no accident claim is admissible to complainant as sought by her. Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect.

11                                   From the careful observation of the evidence and documents placed on record and keeping in view the arguments advanced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as at the time of his death, deceased Mangat Ram was not driving his truck. He did not die in any accident, rather he has died to snake bite, which is not covered under Insurance Policy in question. Complainant has failed to prove her case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in

cc no.-59 of 2018

peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as  per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum,

Dated : 17.02.2020

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                        President