Punjab

Sangrur

CC/450/2016

Kamaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  450

                                                Instituted on:    13.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.01.2017

 

1.     Kamaljit Kaur aged 32 years wife of Late Shri Ram Pal Singh son of Ranjit Singh;

2.     Karanveer Singh aged 9 years minor son of Late Shri Ram Pal Singh son of Ranjit Singh.

3.     Anjali aged 7 years minor daughter of late Shri Ram Pal Singh son of Ranjit Singh.

4.     Amritpal Singh aged 4 years minor son of Late Shri Ram Pal Singh son of Ranjit Singh, all minors under the guardianship of their mother Kamaljit Kaur.

5.     Surinder Pal Kaur aged 60 years wife of Ranjit Singh, all residents of H.No.172, Bhindran Road, VPO Balian, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainants :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For Opposite Party   :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Kamaljit Kaur and others, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the husband of the complainant number 1, father of complainants number 2 to 4 and son of the complainant number 5 namely Shri Ram Pal Singh (referred to as DLA in short) obtained the services of the OP (referred to as OP in short) by getting insured his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing engine number HA10EA9HFA4656 vide policy number 3507013096200772660 for the period from 1.9.2009 to 31.08.2010 under which he was insured for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident cover.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 17.3.2010 the DLA along with Gurpreet Singh was coming to their house on the motorcycle. It is further averred that the DLA was going ahead from the motorcycle of Gurpreet Singh and when they reached near BSNL Park, Nabha Gate, Sangrur, then one sewerage pit was lying opened and its cover was placed on one brick, but the same was without any indication, as such the DLA could not notice the said open sewerage and when he passed over the open pit, then his motorcycle turned turtle and he fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries on his person and was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he was declared to be brought dead. The DDR number 13 dated 18.3.2010 was also recorded at PS City Sangrur.  It is further averred that the complainants only came to know about the said insurance on 17.1.2012 about the insurance policy in question, as such the complainant lodged the claim with the OP on 24.1.2012 and sent claim form along with other documents, but all in vain.  Thereafter the complainant number 1 filed a complaint before this Forum and vide order dated 3.12.2013 directed the OP to decide the claim of the complainants after getting the required documents. The complainant received letter dated 8.9.2014 wherein the OP had demanded the driving license as well as the legal heir certificate from the complainants. The complainant duly replied the said letter and stated that the driving license of the DLA is not available, as the same was lost at the place of accident in the wallet and the legal heir certificate is not necessary as there is no dispute between the legal representatives of the DLA. Further the complainant received another letter dated 28.10.2014 from the OP and the complainant again approached the OP and told the same facts, but the claim was not decided. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the DLA till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is time barred one.  On merits, it is admitted that the DLA got insured the motorcycle in question and the DLA was insured for Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident coverage. Further it is admitted that the complainant approached the OP for settlement of the claim, but all the times the complainant was requested to provide the copy of driving license as well as legal heirs certificate of Ram Pal Singh issued by the competent authority, but the complainant failed to do so.  It is stated further that the OP wrote letter dated 28.10.2014 to the complainant and requested to comply with the orders of the Forum dated 3.12.2013, but the complainants failed to comply with the orders. As such, any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of report, Ex.C-3 copy of DDR, Ex.C-4 copy of PMR, Ex.C-5 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 28.10.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of letter dated 22.7.2014, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 24.12.2013, Ex.OP-5 copy of order dated 3.12.2013 and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             In the present case, it is not in dispute between the complainants and the Op that the DLA was insured for Rs.1,00,000/- under the personal accident policy in question.  Further it is also not in dispute that the complainant earlier filed a complaint number 375 dated 21.8.2012 before this Forum which was decided on 3.12.2013 vide order copy of which on record is Ex.OP/5, whereby it was ordered by this Forum that “So, in view of the discussion we are of the view that the complainant will submit the documents i.e. legal heir certificate or any other proof regarding the legal heirs of the deceased and other required documents to the OP within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order and the OP will decide the claim of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of documents.”.   But, in the present case we may mention that earlier the complaint was filed by complainant number 1 only i.e. Kamaljit Kaur against the opposite party, but now the complainant has filed the complaint along with other four complainants, but did not produce the legal heir certificate as ordered earlier by this Forum, which is the genuine requirement of the OP.  But, there is no explanation from the side of the complainants that why they are not producing the legal heir certificate to the OP.  We have also perused the copy of letter dated 22.7.2014 admittedly sent to the complainant by the OP demanding the legal heir certificate and driving license of Shri Ram Pal Singh, but the same was not supplied to the OP, rather the complainants filed the present complaint.  As such, we failed to understand why the complainant is adamant not to produce the legal heir certificate to the OP, which we feel is a genuine requirement of the OP, as discussed above.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to even comply with the earlier orders of this Forum to submit the required documents to the OP, rather filed the present complaint.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 2,  2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                  

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

 

                                                   (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member