Haryana

Karnal

19/2012

Harbhajan Kaur Wd/o Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

R.D. Goel

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No. 19 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.: 09.01.2012

                                                               Date of decision:25.01.2017

 

Harbhajan Kaur widow of late Shri Hardeep Singh and mother of late Shri Beant Singh, resident of village Mardan Khera, tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Grand House, G.T. Road, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Rama Mill Compound, Samana, through its Branch Manager.

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Registered and Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai-400001.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. R.D.Goyal Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                    

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that her son Beant Singh (since deceased) got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.PB11AT8054 with opposite parties, vide cover note bearing no.495502 effective from 25.2.2011 to 24.2.2012. Basic premium of Rs.7020/-, premium for accidental claim Rs.2500/-, premium on account of personal accident of owner Rs.100/- and premium for personal accident of driver Rs.25/- i.e. total amount of Rs.10638/- was paid as premium alongwith taxes. Thus, her son was also insured and covered under the policy. On 5.3.2011, her son died in roadside accident, while driving the insured vehicle and First Information Report no.140 dated 6.3.2011 was registered regarding the said accident, in Police Station Assandh.  At the time of death, her son was unmarried, therefore, after his death she became entitled for claim on account of his death. Claim was submitted, but the matter was delayed by the opposite parties on one pretext or the other. Therefore, she got served legal notice dated 8.10.2011 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by her own acts and conduct.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that no intimation was ever given to the opposite parties regarding death of Beant Singh and no claim was lodged by the complainant under personal accident policy. Moreover, Beant Singh was not registered owner of the vehicle no.PB11AT-8054 at the time of accident, therefore, the complainant was not entitled for compensation qua personal accidental claim of the deceased. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rajeshwar Singh Divisional Manager Ex.O1 Affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O7 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                 The son of the complainant, namely Beant Singh got insured his Tavera vehicle no.PB11AT-8054 with opposite parties for the period of 25.2.2011 to 24.2.2012. The said vehicle met with an accident on 5.3.2011 while being driven by Beant Singh and in the said accident Beant Singh had died. First Information Report no.140 dated 6.3.2011, the copy of which is Ex.C5, was registered in Police Station Assandh regarding the said accident. It has been alleged by the complainant that she being the mother of the insured lodged claim with the opposite parties, but claim was not paid. On the other hand, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had neither given intimation regarding death of the insured nor lodged nay claim with the opposite parties. Moreover, Beant Singh was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties put a great thrust upon the contention that as per the copy of the registration certificate Ex.O5 Anand Kumar was previous owner of the vehicle and the same was transferred in the name of Beant Singh by District Transport Officer Sangrur on 15.3.2011. Beant Singh, admittedly, died on 5.3.2011. Thus, Beant Singh was not the registered owner of the insured vehicle on the date of accident, therefore, no claim under personal accident of the owner as per policy is payable.

9.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that Beant Singh had purchased the vehicle from Anand Kumar on 24.9.2011 regarding which receipt Ex.C13 was issued by Anand Kumar. Delivery receipt Ex.C14 was also prepared on the same day. Thereafter, Beant Singh got insured the vehicle with opposite parties on 25.2.2011 for the period of 25.2.2011 to 24.2.2012. Then application was moved to District Transport Officer Sangrur on 3.3.2011 and on the basis of the same the vehicle was transferred in his name on 15.3.2011. It has further been argued that the opposite parties have insured the vehicle in the name of Beant Singh on 25.2.2011 and he died on 5.3.2011. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot escape from the liability on the ground that the vehicle was transferred in his name on 15.3.2011.

10.              There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the cover note Ex.C2 for insuring the vehicle no.PB11AT-8054 in the name of Beant Singh was issued on 25.2.2011 and on the basis of said cover note insurance policy was issued by the opposite parties, the copy of which is Ex.O7. The complainant had produced the receipt Ex.C15 by way of additional evidence in order to establish that Beant Singh had moved application to District Transport Officer Sangrur on 3.3.2011, before this death. Learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that on Ex.C15 initially the vehicle number was mentioned as PB11AT-9620, but after cutting the same, vehicle number was mentioned as PB11AT-8054, therefore, no importance can be attached to this document. Undoubtedly, there is cutting regarding number of the vehicle in the said receipt, but the fact remains that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Beant Singh on 15.3.2011. For getting transferred the vehicle in his name, he must have moved application to District Transport Officer Sangrur before his death. It is neither the allegation of the opposite parties nor there is any material on record from which an inference may be drawn that some other person had moved application to District Transport Officer Sangrur for transferring the vehicle in the name of Beant Singh, after his death. This fact also cannot be ignored that when a young man dies in the family and that too in a roadside accident, the family members cannot evnr think to move application to the Registration Authority for getting transferred the vehicle in the name of deceased within a period of 10 days of his death. Therefore, the receipt regarding application moved for transferring the vehicle cannot ignored altogether. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is considered that the said receipt does not relate to the insured vehicle, then also the opposite parties cannot absolved from their liability. Had the insurance not been issued by the opposite parties in the name of Beant Singh before his death, then certainly they could deny the claim of the complainant on the ground that Beant Singh was not the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident, but when the vehicle was got insured by Beant Singh and the opposite parties insured the vehicle considering him to be the owner of the vehicle, then it does not lie in their mouth to say that they are not liable to pay claim regarding death of Beant Singh on the ground that he was not registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident.  Consequently, the opposite parties are estopped from raising such plea, which is not legally tenable.

11.              The copy of the reply submitted by the opposite parties to the registered legal notice sent by the complainant Ex.C12, indicates that before filing the present complaint, the opposite parties had notice of the claim regarding death of Beant Singh. In the said reply it was not clarified that no claim was lodged by the complainant or the required documents were not submitted. Therefore, under such a situation, the plea of the opposite parties that the complainant had neither intimated regarding death of Beant Singh nor lodged claiam with the opposite parties, cannot be accepted.

12.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not making the payment of the genuine claim of the complainant regarding death of her son in the accident, who was covered under personal accident  policy.

13.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:25.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member