District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.421/2022.
Date of Institution:09.08.2022.
Date of Order: 29.03.2024.
Smt. Bimlesh aged about 28 years W/o late Shri Praveen Kumar R/o Village Hirapur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana, Aadhar NO. 204499469838.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office:5R/4, 2nd floor, Gobind Bhawan, NIT, Faridabad – 121001 through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. D.S.Bhati , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sachinder Bhatia , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband of the
omplainant namely Mr. Praveen Kumar was registered owner of vehicle (Maruti Suzuki Alto K10 LX1 Car) bearing registration NO. HR-29-AD-8691, which was duly insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 2210003118P113298578 valid from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020. The owner driver of the said vehicle was also insured with the said policy as the opposite party had received further premium on account of GR36A-PA for owner-Driver (Personal Accident Covers) as Rs.750/- and as per clause “Limit of L:iability” P.A.Cover under Section III for owner-driver (CSI) for Rs.15,00,000/-.On 26.06.2019 the husband of the complainant was going for his duty at Johar Motors, Seekri in his car No. HR-29-AD-8691 and at about 8:40 a,m he reached under Byspass of village Kailly some unknown persons had shooted the husband of the complainant and the husband of the complainant had died. Then Harish Tara S/o Kulwant Tara R/o Army Colony, Sector-29, Faridabad and other person had taken the husband of the complainant to Sarvodaya Hospital where the doctor declared him as dead and his postmortem was conducted in B.K.Hospital, Faridabad. On the statement of Manoj Kumar S/o Chanderbhan, matter was reported ot P.S.Sadar Ballabgarh vide FIR NO. 317 dated 26.06.2019 u/s. 302, 34 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act. The complainant duly intimated the opposite party and submitted the requisite documents as demanded by the opposite party and got the claim lodged with the opposite party being legal heir of the insured-Praveen Kumar. The complainant contacted the concerned officers/officials of the office of the opposite party and requested several times telephonically, as well as personnel visits, but there was no satisfactory response from the opposite party as the concerned officer/official avoided to accede to the legitimate request of the complainant on the one pretext or
the other and finally the opposite party sent a letter dated 07.10.2020 and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant by making some false excused.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) disburse the claimed amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that at the very threshold in the complaint that the alleged accident took place on 26.04.2019 when thehusband of the complainant who was the owner and insured of car No. HR-29AD-8691 was going for his duty at about 8.40p.m. and when he reached under bye pass of Village Kailly some unknown person had shooted the insured and he died in the Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad. The complaint had been lodged by Manoj Kumar vide FIR No. 317 dated 26.06.2019 u/s 302/34 IPC and 25.54/59 of Arms Act. In view of the above facts the insured who was the owner of vehicle No. HR-29AD-8691 had been murdered by some unknown persons and further the complainant filed a present complaintn before rs.15 lacs on account of personal accident from the insurance company. As in vie wof the above, the insured Praveen Kumar who was murdred by some unknown person and vehicle was insured under package policy NO. 2210003118P113298578 valid from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020. After investigating the matter and appointed Shri R.K.Chaudhary Investigator and reported that the police had filed charge sheet against the accused person and concluded that the insured was murdered as a result
of enmity between the deceased and the accused persons and they were relatives, therefore as per the terms and conditions of the policy the death of the insured was not a accidental murder but it was simple and planted murder for the reason of enmity between the deceased and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, it covers only death caused by violent accident and visible means which was independent of any other cause, therefore it did not fall within the purview of the policy terms and conditions and the claim was not tenable and repudiated one. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–M/s. United India Insurance company Ltd. with the prayer to: a) disburse the claimed amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Shri Bimlesh, Ex.C-1 – insurance policy, vlid from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020, Ex.C-2 – FIR,, Ex.C-3 – Post Mortem Examination report, Ex.C-4 – repudiation letter dated 07.10.2020, Ex.C-5 – insurance policy valid from28.01.2019 to 27.01.2019, Ex.C-6 –job card retail – tax invoice,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Kailash Taneja, Deputy Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-106, Sector-16, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – FIR,, Ex.R-2 – post mortem examination report,, Ex,R-3 – death report,, Ex.R-4 & 6– Site plans, Ex.R-7 & 8- statement of Devdutt, Ex.R-9 – Manoj Kumar, Ex.C-10 – newspaper cutting, Ex.R-11 – investigation cum verification of Perils Claims, Ex.R-12 - certificate issued by Sarpanch, Graham Panchyat, Hirapur, Ballabgarh, Ex.R-13 – statement of Manoj
Kumar, Ex.R-14 & 15– Arrest memos, Ex.R-16 – repudiation letter, Ex.R-17 – insurance policy valid from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020
6. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to disburse the claimed amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization.
7. In this case the opposite party received the premium on account of personal accident as Rs.750/- for covering the limit of liability under personal accident as Rs.15,00,000/- but as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Clause No IMT 16 wherein clearly mentioned that:
“the insured at the time of such injury is sustained whilst mounting into, dismounting from or travelling but not during the insured Motor Car and accident by violent accidental, external and visible means which independent of any of the cause.”
8. Keeping in view of the above as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the case was fixed for pronouncement of the order on 29.03.2023. File taken up again on 28.03.2024 after lunch on the request of the counsel for the complainant for withdrawl of the case. Shri Darshan Singh Bhati, counsel for the complainant suffered a statement that “ I do not want to pursue the present complaint and wants to withdraw the same due to some technical fault and permission may kindly be granted to file fresh complaint before this competent court/Commission. “ The case was adjourned to 29.03.2024 for consideration on the statement on the date fixed i.e 29.03.2024.
On the statement of Shri Darshan Singh Bhati, counsel for the complainant on 28.03.2024, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint/suit or any other proceedings before any competent Commission/Authority/Court. The complainant can claim benefit of Section 14A of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act before this Commission while computing the period of limitation. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 29.03.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
