Haryana

Panchkula

CC/323/2020

SMT.AJUDHYA DEVI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.. - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH SAINI & NEHA SAINI

27 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	323 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	23.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2021

 

Smt. Ajudhya Devi aged 73 years wife of Late Shri Janak Singh, resident of village Nanwar, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, HP through her General Power of attorney Sh. Mintu Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Village and Post Office Nanwar, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra HP at present serving at SCO No.17, Sector-16, Panchkula.  

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.      National Insurance Company Limited SCO No.57, First Floor, Sector-26-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.      National Insurance Company Limited SCO No.131, Sector-17, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

3.      National Insurance Company Limited Head Office-3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata West Bengal 70001 through its Managing Director.  

                                                                               ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Shri Dinesh Saini, Advocate, counsel for the         complainant.

                            Shri Nitin Gupta Advocate, counsel for the Ops No.1                                to 3.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the present complaint is being filed by the complainant through her General Power of attorney Sh. Mintu Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash. It is alleged that the son of complainant, namely, Rajesh Kumar was the registered owner of Maruti Swift Desire Tour car bearing registration no.HP-01-D-5270 and the said car was duly insured with the OPs vide policy no.35101041176340735472, which was valid w.e.f. 13.10.2017 to midnight of 12.10.2018 and paid Rs.23,781/- as premium to the Ops. The said car was insured with the OPs under bumper to bumper policy and in case of any loss/damage to the said car, the Ops were liable to indemnify the loss caused to car of the complainant. Unfortunately, the said car met with an accident on 06.10.2018, at Rajpura Road Shambu (PB) and son of the complainant, namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar had expired and the said car had also totally damaged in the said accident. To this effect an FIR No.120 dated 06.10.2018 under Section 279, 337, 338,427, 304-A IPC was registered by the police of P.S. Shambu. The intimation of the said accident was given to the Ops by the complainant in time. It is also alleged that as per instructions of the concerned officials of the OPs, the complainant took the vehicle to M/s Autovogue, Plot No.388, Industrial Area, Panchkula and thereafter, the surveyor appointed by the Ops who inspected the vehicle of the complainant, informed that as the car in question has been totally damaged and the complainant being the nominee can claim the insurance amount of the car from the OPs. Accordingly, she submitted the claim form as well as requisite document for releasing the claim through her grand-son, namely, Mintu Kumar (GPA Holder) but inspite of sufficient wait, no response was received from the Ops. Several times the complainant made correspondence to the OPs through her grand-son Mintu Kumar for releasing the claim amount and submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs but till date no claim amount has been released to the complainant or her grandson. Rather the OPs demanded the legal heir certificate from the complainant and the same was submitted with the OPs but till date no compensation/claim has been released to the complainant. Further, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the OPs on 18.09.2020. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notices, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no locus standi; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts; no territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that as per legal heirs certificate submitted by the complainant there are two more legal heirs namely i) Smt. Parvati Devi (widow) and ii Sh. Divyansh Rana (son). It is also alleged that they requested the complainant through correspondence dated 02.06.2020 and reminders dated 23.07.2020 and 14.09.2020 to provide the address, I.D. proof and contact number of Smt. Parvati Devi and Divyansh Rana to proceed the claim further. The complainant has not impleaded other legal heirs of deceased Rajesh Kumar, namely, Parvati Devi & Divyansh Rana as party in the present complaint. Due to non-submission of the requisite information/documents, the OPs through registered letter dated 30.09.2020 closed the claim filed as “No claim”. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.                                                                                                             

3.               The GPA of complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-23 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit of Smt. Nishi Sharma, Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-II, SCO-57, Ist Floor, Sector-26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh as Annexure R/A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and OPs and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the OPs, minutely and carefully.

5.               The only dispute between the parties is with regard to disbursement of the assured sum amounting to Rs.4,39,121/- payable under the insurance policy no.35101041176340735472. The factual position is not disputed. As per complainant, she being the “nominee” under the said policy (Annexure C-8), is entitled to receive the assured sum from the OPs whereas, the OPs have disputed the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per legal heirs certificate (Annexure C-13), there are two other legal heirs also, namely, Parvati Devi and Divyansh Rana apart from the complainant, namely, Smt. Ajudhya Devi. It is contended on behalf of the OPs that all the legal heirs are entitled to receive the assured sum and in this regard, the complainant was asked  to furnish the whereabouts i.e. the addresses as well as details of other legal heirs vide several letters but, the complainant has intentionally and deliberately not provided the same to the OPs and thus, it has been stated that there is no lapse and deficiency on their part.

6.               Apart from contesting the complaint on merits, the OPs have disputed the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. This objection is liable to be rejected, in view of the fact that accidental car bearing no.HP-01-D-5270, was inspected and loss was assessed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Surveyor in the premises of M/s AUTOVOGUE PVT LTD. Panchkula.

                  On merits, the Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant being the nominee under the policy is entitled to receive the assured sum.  In support of his contention he has placed reliance on following case laws:-

1. Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Coop. Societies & Others 2016(2) RCR(civil) 886(SC)
2. Usha Kumar Ranawat Vs. LIC, 2011(ACJ)2505, 2012(1) ACJ 403(SC)
3. Branch Manager Vs. Satya Narain Yadav, 2017(1) CPR 490 (NCDRC).
4. LIC of India Vs. Kolla Santhi 2016(1) CPR 566, 2016(1) CLT 520(NCDRC).
5. Smt. Kunta Devi alias Kanta Devi Versus Life Insurance Corporation and another, First Appeal No.256 of 2019, decided on 29.06.2020, Hon’ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla.

              In view of the well settled legal proposition, the OPs have no right to deny the disbursement of the assured sums to the nominee i.e. the complainant in the present case. The opposite parties have failed to show any case law in support of its contention that all the legal heirs including the nominee are entitled to receive the sum assured. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that the Ops have been negligent and deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

7.               Regarding the relief it is found that the surveyor vide his report (Annexure R/2) has assessed a loss of Rs.4,38,621/- in respect of accidental car No. HP-01-D-5270 on net salvage basis. The value of the salvage has been assessed as Rs.90,000/-. During the course of arguments the Ld. counsel for the complainant has prayed that a sum of Rs.3,48,621/- after deducting the value of salvage as Rs.90,000/- out of total assessed loss of Rs.4,38,621/- may be directed to be disbursed in favour of the complainant. It has been prayed that the aforesaid sum may be disbursed to the complainant keeping in view her old age. The prayer of the complainant seems to be genuine and fair and in our opinion the ends of justice would be met, if case the prayer of the complainant is accepted.          

8.               In the light of above observations, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed with the following directions:-

1. The Ops are directed to disburse the amount of Rs.3,48,621/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the present complaint  till its realization.
2. The Ops are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with Rs.5500/-as cost of litigation charges.

9.               The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 27.04.2021

HG

           Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini      Satpal

                    Member                    Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                

  Satpal

                                                President