BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.447 of 2014
Date of Institution: 18.11.2014
Date of Decision: 06.07.2015
- Bimla Devi, Aged 50 years, Wd/o Hans Raj.
- Rajesh Kumar, Aged 27 years
- Mahavir, Aged 32 years, Sons of Hansraj, Residents of Village Kikkar Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.
- Urmila Devi, Aged 30 years, Daughter of Hansraj (W/o Sunil Kumar) Resident of village Kattian Wali, Tehsil & District Fazilka. .......Complainants
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Street No.8, Circular Road, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, through its Branch Manager.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainants : Sh. Parkash Makkar, Advocate.
For the opposite party : Sh. B. R. Arora, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that Hans Raj was the Secretary of The Kikkar Khera M.P.C.A.S. Ltd., Village Kikkar Khera, Tehsil Abohar and the said Society i.e. employer had taken a group insurance policy from the opposite party for its employees, including the aforesaid Hans Raj. The Insurance Cover note was having number 401204376124 dated 22.4.2013and the sum insured of the aforesaid Hans Raj was Rs.2,00,000/-. Further it has been pleaded that on 12.12.2013, Hans Raj met with an accident and got injuries and during treatment, he died on 24.12.2013. When the complainants came to know that the said Hans
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //3//
Raj was insured with the opposite party under a group insurance policy, the complainants submitted the claim to the opposite party and also completed all formalities. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 5.6.2014 on the ground that the driving licence of the deceased Hansraj was not renewed. Stating the repudiation of the claim to be unlawful and arbitrary and pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants with interest @18% per annum. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that on receipt of the personal accident claim form dated 25.4.2014, Satish Kumar Bansal was deputed as Investigator, who submitted his report dated 3.5.2014 and it was found that the driving licence of deceased Driver Hans Raj submitted by the claimant bearing DL No.22900 dated 24.2.1977 was got renewed by Hans Raj vide No.4180 from licensing authority, Abohar from 7.11.2003 to 6.11.2008. Admittedly, Hans Raj
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //4//
met with an accident on 12.12.2013 while going on his motor cycle and the driving licence of Hans Raj was valid till 6.11.2008. Hans Raj was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of accident on 121.12.2013 and his drving licence had already expired on 6.11.2008. Therefore, when Hans Raj met with an accident on 12.12.2013, he was driving the motor cycle while committing breach and violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. As such, the claim has rightly been repudiated in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further it has been pleaded that the present complaint has been filed by the complainants alleging themselves to be the legal heirs of the deceased life assured Hans Raj, which is not maintainable in the present form and this Forum has no power to declare as to who are the legal heirs of deceased life assured and consequently direct the payment of any amount. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //5//
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that deceased Hans Raj
was the Secretary of The Kikkar Khera M.P.C.A.S. Ltd., Village Kikkar Khera, Tehsil Abohar and he was insured under group insurance policy/Cover Note No.401204376124 dated 22.4.2013 Ex.C-3 for the period from 22.4.2013 to 21.4.2014. It is also the admitted case of the parties that during the subsistence of the policy on 12.12.2013, said Hans Raj met with an accident while he was driving the motor cycle and got injuries and during treatment, he died on 24.12.2013. However, claim of the complainants on account of death of deceased life insured Hans Raj has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 5.6.2014 Ex.C-4 on the ground that as per the investigation report dated 3.5.2014 of Investigator Satish Kumar Bansal, insured Hans Raj, who was driving Motor Cycle No.PB-15D-7148 at the time of accident on 12.12.2013, was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The opposite party has placed on the file copy of Investigation Report dated 3.5.2014 issued by Satish Kumar Bansal, Investigator as Ex.OP-2, vide which the said Investigator has observed that Hans Raj died on
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //6//
24.12.2013 at G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot after he got injuries in the accident dated 12.12.2013, while driving his motor cycle. Hans Raj was not having valid driving licence to drive the Motor Cycle at the time of accident as his driving licence was not renewed after 2008. The opposite party has also placed on the file copy of driving licence of deceased insured Hans Raj as Ex.OP-3, a perusal of which reveals that it was valid only upto 6.11.2008 and thereafter it was not ever got renewed by the complainant for the further period. The complainant has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that deceased insured had valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. Even the opposite party, vide letter dated 5.6.2014 Ex.OP-4, sought information regarding validity of the driving licence of deceased insured Hans Raj from his employer, but there is nothing on the record that the complainant had furnished any further information in this regard to the opposite party. From the facts and evidence placed on the file by both the parties, it is quite evident that the driving licence of deceased Hans Raj was valid only upto 6.11.2008 and he was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of his accident. As per Section 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //7//
vehicle. In “National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagjit Singh”, 2014 (1) CPC 277, respondent’s car had met with an accident on 27.11.2005 and driving licence of the respondent had already expired on 2.5.2003, though as per respondent’s case the same was renewed later on, but w.e.f. 2.5.2003, validity of driving license was not proved and the claim was repudiated by the Petitioner. The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi while discussing the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, 2009 (3) CPC 12 (SC), has held the repudiation of the claim to be justified. In the present case, the deceased insured Hans Raj was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of his accident, as discussed above. Therefore, it is held that the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants on account of accidental death of deceased insured Hans Raj and no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the opposite party. Resultantly, the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
C.C. No.447 of 2014 //8//
6. Arguments in this case were heard on 22.6.2015 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders be communicated to the parties. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
06.07.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
