BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.217/13.
Date of instt.: 01.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2015.
Sat Pal s/o Matu Ram, r/o VPO Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Krishan Atwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. It is alleged that the real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. The said detail was already given to the complainant in response to his notice dt. 08.03.2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. The real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. Reference can be made upon the authority reported as General Manager, UII Vs. M. Laxmi and others, 2009 ACJ page 104 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Insurance-Act policy-Pillion rider-Liability of insurance company-Death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter-Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable-High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor-cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company-Circular of Tariff Advisory Committee is applicable only in case of comprehensive policy whereas policy in this case is Act policy-Whether insurance company is liable-Held: no. We are also guided by the authority reported as UII Vs. Tilak Singh and others, 2006(2) CXLIII page 297 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147(2)-Statutory policy-Did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger-Car-ride in private vehicle-Insurance Company not liable for a pillion rider on a scooter. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.217/13.
Date of instt.: 01.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2015.
Sat Pal s/o Matu Ram, r/o VPO Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Krishan Atwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. It is alleged that the real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. The said detail was already given to the complainant in response to his notice dt. 08.03.2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. The real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. Reference can be made upon the authority reported as General Manager, UII Vs. M. Laxmi and others, 2009 ACJ page 104 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Insurance-Act policy-Pillion rider-Liability of insurance company-Death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter-Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable-High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor-cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company-Circular of Tariff Advisory Committee is applicable only in case of comprehensive policy whereas policy in this case is Act policy-Whether insurance company is liable-Held: no. We are also guided by the authority reported as UII Vs. Tilak Singh and others, 2006(2) CXLIII page 297 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147(2)-Statutory policy-Did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger-Car-ride in private vehicle-Insurance Company not liable for a pillion rider on a scooter. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.217/13.
Date of instt.: 01.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2015.
Sat Pal s/o Matu Ram, r/o VPO Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Krishan Atwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. It is alleged that the real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. The said detail was already given to the complainant in response to his notice dt. 08.03.2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. The real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. Reference can be made upon the authority reported as General Manager, UII Vs. M. Laxmi and others, 2009 ACJ page 104 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Insurance-Act policy-Pillion rider-Liability of insurance company-Death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter-Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable-High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor-cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company-Circular of Tariff Advisory Committee is applicable only in case of comprehensive policy whereas policy in this case is Act policy-Whether insurance company is liable-Held: no. We are also guided by the authority reported as UII Vs. Tilak Singh and others, 2006(2) CXLIII page 297 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147(2)-Statutory policy-Did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger-Car-ride in private vehicle-Insurance Company not liable for a pillion rider on a scooter. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.217/13.
Date of instt.: 01.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 05.01.2015.
Sat Pal s/o Matu Ram, r/o VPO Khanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Krishan Atwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. It is alleged that the real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. The said detail was already given to the complainant in response to his notice dt. 08.03.2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured the motor-cycle Hero-Honda with the Ops vide policy No.420503/31/11/6200003571. The real son of complainant namely Naresh met with a road-side accident on 24.04.2012 when one Pardeep Kumar s/o Gaje Singh r/o Khanpur was driving the said motor-cycle and son of complainant was pillion-rider at the time of accident. The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 24.03.2013. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the pillion-rider is not covered under the alleged policy. As per policy, only premium has been paid for T.P. Basis (i.e. third party) and for compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver. The deceased son of complainant is not covered under the said policy in any manner. Reference can be made upon the authority reported as General Manager, UII Vs. M. Laxmi and others, 2009 ACJ page 104 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Insurance-Act policy-Pillion rider-Liability of insurance company-Death of pillion rider when the scooter hit a bullock cart because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter-Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable-High Court relying upon circular of Tariff Advisory Committee which states that standard form for motor-cycle should cover liability to pillion passengers affixed liability on the insurance company-Circular of Tariff Advisory Committee is applicable only in case of comprehensive policy whereas policy in this case is Act policy-Whether insurance company is liable-Held: no. We are also guided by the authority reported as UII Vs. Tilak Singh and others, 2006(2) CXLIII page 297 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147(2)-Statutory policy-Did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger-Car-ride in private vehicle-Insurance Company not liable for a pillion rider on a scooter. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.05.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
