BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 700 of 2015
Date of Institution: 7.12.2015
Date of Decision: 25.5.2016
- Rajwinder Kaur widow of Sakattar Singh, Aged 34 years
- Simranjeet Singh minor son of Sakattar Singh Aged 15 years
- Navjot Kaur minor daughters of Sakattar Singh aged 14 years
- Gursharanjit Singh minor son of Sakattar Singh aged 11 years, All Rs/o VPO Meerankot Kalan, Tehsil & District Amritsar all minors through her mother, natural guardian, next friend i.e. complainant No.1 Rajinder Singh
Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 80 Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Sh.Kuljeet Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh. Sanjay Kapoor,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Rajwinder kaur & other complainants have brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainants are permanent residents of Meerankot Kalan Tehsil and District Amritsar. Complainants No.2 to 4 are minors and therefore , complaint on behalf of minor children have brought through complainant No.1 as she has got no adverse interest to those or the minor children. Husband of the complainant Sakattar Singh was the registered owner of the vehicle Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-BT-6289 and he got the same fully insured with the opposite party vide Insurance policy No.LDH/2012/758131 w.e.f. 2.3.2013 to 1.3.2014, copy of the Insurance cover note is annexed. Unfortunately the said vehicle of Sakattar Singh met with road accident on 8.12.2013 at Village Naushehra Pannuan. In the said accident Sakattar Singh, original owner of the vehicle, died as he succumbed to his injuries on 8.12.2013 itself. The vehicle was also badly damaged. In this regard an FIR No.189 dated 9.12.2013 under section 304-A/279/337/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S. Sarhali, Tarn Taran against owner of Cr PB-02-BK-0827 Tempo. The present complainants are none else but legal heirs of Sakattar Singh , now deceased . Except them there are no other legal heirs of deceased Sakattar Singh. The complainant No.1 duly informed the office of the opposite party regarding the accident and the vehicle having been completely destroyed in that accident. The complainant has been approaching the opposite party many a times for getting the claim of the vehicle in question, but opposite party has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other . The complainants have already submitted all the documents with the opposite party as per their demand, but till date opposite party did not bother even to make a response to the complainants what to talk of granting the insurance claim of the vehicle in question. The opposite party is legally bound to make payment of the vehicle claim to the complainants. There is no bar to the claim of the complainants in this regard as the vehicle in question was fully insured. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the complainants taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the present complaint is not maintainable . The complainants do not fall under the definition of consumer . Hence the present dispute has not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; that no claim was lodged with the opposite party by the complainant ever with regard to the alleged damaged to the alleged vehicle nor any immediate notice/intimation with regard to alleged damage to the vehicle was ever given to the opposite party. As per terms and conditions of the policy, notice was required to be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage to the vehicle. The complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party. The complainants have no remedy against the opposite party/Insurance company nor any cause of action have arisen in their favour. A policy bearing No.36050031120100009521 was obtained by Sakattar Singh with regard to vehicle No. PB-02-BT-6289 for the period from 2.3.2013 to 1.3.2014 . Only personal accident death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- regarding the death of Sakattar Singh was lodged by complainant Rajinder kaur after few month of the alleged death with the company and after processing the death claim lodged by the complainant, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the complainant on 16.10.2015. No insurance claim with regard to any alleged damage to the alleged vehicle was lodged by the complainants at any stage nor any immediate written notice/intimation with regard to the alleged damage to the vehicle in question was given nor any claim form with other necessary documents were submitted by the complainant to the opposite party till date ; that the present complaint is nothing but misuse of the process of the court. The complainants are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In their bid to prove the case Sh.Kuljeet Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Rajwinder Kaur Ex.C-1, copy of Insurance cover note Ex.C-2, copy of death certificate Ex.C-3, copy of FIR Ex.C-4, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-5, copy of post-mortem report Ex.C-6, copy of voter ID card Ex.C-7, copy of driving license Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sanjay Kapoor,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunil Mahajan, Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, copy of payment voucher with regard to disbursement of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rajwinder Kaur Ex.OP2, copy of Insurance policy Ex.OP3, copy of certificate in respect of compliance of section 64VB of Insurance Act Ex.OP4, copy of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy Ex.OP5, copy of claim intimation letter Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. There is no dispute that Sakattar Singh, now deceased, predecessor in interest of the complainants has got his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-02-BT-6289, insured with the opposite party vide Insurance policy No.LDH/2012/758131 w.e.f. 2.3.2013 to 1.3.2014. Copy of the Insurance policy accounts for Ex.C-2. It is also an admitted fact that said Sakattar Singh son of Karam Singh met with an accident at Naushehra Pannuan on 8.12.2013 and he died in the process and the vehicle in dispute was also badly damaged in that accident. Copy of the death certificate A/cs. for Ex.C-3. First information regarding the accident was lodged on 9.12.2013 at P.S. Sarhali u/s 304-A/279/337/338/427 IPC , copy of the FIR accounts for Ex.C-4. It is the case of the complainants that complainant No.1 lodged the death claim insurance as well as compensation for damage caused to the vehicle in dispute. But, however, opposite party did not bother to grant any claim regarding the loss to the vehicle in dispute to the complainants so far despite visiting a number of times to the office of the opposite party in that regard. On the other hand it is the case of the opposite party that claim regarding the death of Sakattar Singh has already been granted in favour of the complainants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, copy of payment voucher accounts for Ex.OP2 dated 16.10.2015. But, however, no formal claim regarding loss to the vehicle in dispute has been lodged by the complainants so far with the Insurance company.
7. From the perusal of the record, it also reveals that no formal claim regarding loss to the vehicle in dispute, has been lodged by the complainants. The complaint , as such, is pre-mature. Complainant Rajwinder Kaur, is major, while other complainants are minors, therefore, Rajwinder Kaur , complainant is directed to lodge the claim regarding damage to the vehicle in dispute with the opposite party within 15 days from the receipt of copy of the order, who shall dispose of the claim within a further period of one month therefrom. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 25.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar ) President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
