Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Neelam Goyel wife of Late Sh.Vinod Kumar Goyel against opposite party i.e. National Insurance Company, Sultanpur Road, Kapurthala through its Branch Manager for claiming insurance amount alongwith monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that husband of complainant Vinod Kumar Goyel was registered owner of Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. PB09-7315 and he got the said scooter insured from the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 401111/31/06/6700004657 valid from 21/2/2007 to 20/2/2008 alongwith compulsory accident policy of Rs.1,00,000/- after charging premium of Rs.50/- plus service tax @ 12.24%. It is further averred that unfortunately her husband was killed in some vehicular accident on 16/9/07 while coming back from Mata Chintapurni to Kapurthala on his Santro car bearing registration No. PB09-H-0509 when his car suddenly met with an accident at Nangal Shama Chowk, Jalandhar at 8.30 PM with Maruti Alto Car bearing NO.PB08-R-Temporary-4651. DDR to this effect bearing No.7 dated 24/9/07 was registered at POlice Post Nangal Shama PS Sadar District Jalandhar. Since she is legally wedded wife of Late Sh.Vinod Kumar Goyel, so she filed claim of Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident policy before opposite party after intimation of fatal accident of her husband but the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company falsely, illegally and arbitrarily which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party against which she is entitled to the reliefs claimed. 3. Opposite party appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted her claim. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that she has no lccus standi to file the present complainant nor present complaint is maintainable.. This fact is admitted that husband of complainant had got the insurance policy regarding scooter No.PB09-7315 and the said policy covers risk for personal accident arising out of the motor vehicle while driving the vehicle insured. However, death of husband of the complainant in any such vehicular accident with the insured vehicle i.e. scooter is vehemently denied and her case prima-facie is not covered under policy No. 401111/31/06/6700004657 nor is permissible under Regulation of Indian Motor Tariff. However, claim in respect of damaged case bearing No. PB09-H-0509 in the name of M/s Mahavir Metals, Kapurthala was already paid. Therefore, repudiation of insurance claim pertaining to scooter is not permissible and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 4. In support of her version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C7. 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.R2 to R4. 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party Insurance Company has vehemently urged before us that present complaint is not maintainable and that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Moreover, claim is not covered under the insurance policy No. 401111/31/06/6700004657 for the period 21/2/2007 to 20/2/2008 in respect of compulsory personal accident policy of the insured Vinod Kumar Goyel ( since expired). On the other hand learned counsel for complainant has counter-urged that since Vinod Goyel registered owner of Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. PB09-7315 insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No.401111/31/06/6700004657 in which compulsory personal accident policy of Rs.1,00,000/- on charge of premium is covered and as such complainant being widow/legal heir of deceased Vinod Goyel is entitled to maintain this complaint to claim insurance amount under the policy. 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. No doubt, complainant being the widow of Vinod Goyel was killed on 16/9/07 in fatal accident in respect of another vehicle i.e. Santro Car bearing R.C. No. PB09-H-0509 which was too insured with the Insurance Company. This fact is also not disputed that Vinod Goyel was registered owner of Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No. PB09-7315 and the abovesaid scooter was insured with the Insurance Company vide insurance policy No. .401111/31/06/6700004657 w.e.f. 21/2/07 to 20/2/2008. Since neither loss of life nor damage to insured Bajaj Chetak had occurred in any accident, so complainant as legal heir of deceased Vinod Goyel cannot maintain insurance claim on the basis of fatal accident of her husband in respect of another accidental vehicle i.e Santro Alto car bearing R.C. No.PB09-H-0509 nor terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.C2/R2 nor G.R. 36 personal accident (covered under Motor policy) can be stretched to indemnify the claimant against such loss of life In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we do not find merit in this complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs, Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced : (Gulshan Prashar ) ( A.K. Sharma ) 15.9.2008 Member President.
