BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 141 of 2021
Date of Institution : 26.07.2021
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024
1. Krishna Devi (aged about 74 years) widow of late Sh. Ramji Lal son of Sh. Tulsi Ram,
2. Bharat Bhushan (aged about 24 years) son of late Sh. Ramji Lal son of Sh. Tulsi Ram, both residents of Ding Mandi, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office: Sirsa Division, First Floor, LIC Building, Near Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa – 125055 through its Divisional Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office: SCO 332-334, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh (Tel. 0172-5059428-429) through its Chief Regional Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
…….Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rajesh Khaleri, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainants is that husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 namely Sh. Ramji Lal had purchased one Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-20K-9155 from its registered owner Sh. Hari Singh son of Sh. Ram Partap, resident of village Bodiwali, District Fatehabad on 24.06.2020 and in this regard affidavit for sale was sworn by aforesaid registered owner in favour of Sh. Ramji Lal now deceased on the same day. The said car was duly insured with ops against policy no. 42070031196760003942 and all the documents alongwith car were delivered to Sh. Ramji Lal on 24.06.2020. That just after purchasing the said vehicle, Sh. Ramji Lal obtained NOC from Registering Authority (M.V) Fatehabad for getting the same transferred in his name from Registering Authority, Sirsa which was issued on 26.06.2020. It is further averred that on 29.06.2020 at about 4.00 a.m., Sh. Ramji Lal was going from Ding Mandi to Hisar in his relation on said car and on the way when he reached near Madan Hotel NH-9, Fatehabad there due to construction work of sewerage sand was lying on the bank of the road and due to dark and also due to lights of opposite vehicles, he could not see the sand on the bank of road and tyres of the car from the conductor side ran over the sand due to which vehicle became unbalanced. Then the car turned turtle due to which Sh. Ramji Lal received serious injuries on his head and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad on ambulance, but the doctor declared him dead. In this regard a parat no.33 dated 29.06.2020 was registered on the statement of brother of complainant no.1 namely Sh. Satish Kumar son of Sh. Hargobind, resident of Hisar in Rojnamacha at P.S. City Fatehabad. It is further averred that aforesaid vehicle was duly insured with ops and owner-driver claim was insured up to Rs. 15,00,000/- and after death of Sh, Ramji Lal, information was supplied to the ops and claim was applied by complainants on account of his death while driving the aforesaid car and all necessary documents were supplied by them to the ops and they also fulfilled all the formalities on their asking. That thereafter, the complainants visited the office of ops and requested to pay the claim amount on which ops put off the matter with one pretext or the other and now the ops have refused to pay the claimed amount on the pretext that RC of said vehicle is in the name of Sh. Hari Singh and even the husband of complainant no.1 was not insured person at the time of accident which is totally false excuse because Sh. Ramji Lal had died only within five days from the date of purchase of vehicle and there is no fault on the part of complainants for getting the vehicle transferred and they are legally entitled to get claimed amount on account of his death. That complainants finding no other way also got served a legal notice dated 22.01.2021 to the ops but they gave a false reply on 22.02.2021 and refused to give the claim and have caused unnecessary harassment, deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, complainants are not consumer and locus standi. It is also submitted that complainants and answering ops never entered with each other by way of contract of insurance covering the risk of deceased Ramji Lal under personal accident coverage, as personal accident coverage benefit was/is available for PA to owner driver and owner according to law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court means the registered owner who should be on the steering of the vehicle having driving licence and after completion of required formalities of submission of documents to the insurer by such deceased owner-driver for the purpose of claiming personal accident benefit. Insurance company can be held liable only under contractual obligation to pay the sum insured for personal accident which in this case was Rs.15 lakhs according to term and conditions of policy, but as registered owner and insured on the date of accident was Hari Singh and no document was submitted by deceased Ramji Lal for getting the insurance policy transferred in his name by submitting necessary fee and supported documents for getting the rights and benefits of policy, so in absence of compliance of completion of such formalities by Ramji Lal and registered owner/ insured Hari Singh, answering ops were/are not under contractual obligation to make payment for the death of Ramji Lal as contractual obligation starts only after contract in between the parties. It is further submitted that contract of insurance was in existence with Hari Singh registered owner of above said vehicle who otherwise never gave rights and benefits of insurance to deceased while selling the vehicle. The insurance policy clearly stipulates providing immediate information about any accident, incident with insured vehicle and sale of vehicle to insurance company, but till date in the record of insurance, insured is Hari Singh and no intimation with regard to any accident has ever been supplied by insured Hari Singh, even no intimation about sale of vehicle, giving insurance policy right has ever been given to insurance company. However, intimation about death of Ramji Lal was given on 17.07.2020, but as Ramji Lal was neither insured nor registered owner, further was having no contract of insurance with answering ops for availing benefits of policy, hence complainants were/ are not entitled for any kind of personal accident claim of Rs.15 lacs. It is the pre-requisite for seeking personal accident claim that he should be registered owner, he should be owner driving the vehicle, he should be having valid driving licence and first of all, person seeking benefit under the policy should be insured and all above is applied thereafter, but in this case, deceased was neither insured, nor registered owner of the vehicle as by mere obtaining the NOC by him, such applicant like deceased Ramji Lal does not become registered owner of the vehicle without getting the registered ownership transferred in his name. It is further submitted that policy, term and conditions, their binding effects and applicability will only be seen after contract is entered into with two parties i.e. insurance company and insured after completion of requisite formalities, which are basic foundation of contract of insurance and its enforcement, hence complainants are not legally entitled for the personal accident benefits. The order of repudiation of no claim has been passed by ops after serving registered letters whereby explanation was sought from complainant no.1 and when she failed in replying the same to answering ops’ company, the claim lodged by complainant no.1 was repudiated by passing the order of No Claim and detailed reply with all specific reason/ contention was given by counsel for the company and after going through that reply, complainants have filed this false and frivolous complaint. which is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs as act of answering ops in repudiating the claim is according to law and contract of insurance. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, the contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Smt. Krishna Devi complainant as Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
5. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gumber, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. From the copy of affidavit of Hari Singh the then registered owner of the Car bearing registration No. HR20K 9155 Ex.C7, it is evident that on 24.06.2020 he sold the said car to Sh. Ramji Lal son of Sh. Tulsi Ram husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 and said Ramji Lal also obtained NOC from Registering Authority, Fatehabad on 26.06.2020 i.e. within two days from the purchase of the car in question and copy of which is also placed on file by complainants as Ex.C5. The said car was also got insured by said Hari Singh from the ops for the period 21.01.2020 to 20.01.2021 after paying the requisite premium amount of Rs.2863/- which also included premium amount of Rs.295/- against coverage of personal accident to owner driver. The ops have also not denied the fact that there was no coverage of personal accident to owner driver for the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. However, before the vehicle could be registered in favour of said Ramji Lal, unfortunately on 29.06.2020 i.e. just within five days of purchase of car in question by him, he met with an accident in the area of Fatehabad while he was going from Ding Mandi to Hisar in the said Car and in the said accident he received serious injuries on his head and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad where the doctor declared him as dead. A rapat bearing no. 33 dated 29.06.2020 was also registered in Police Station City Fatehabad on the statement of brother of complainant no.1 and copy of the same is also placed on file by complainants as Ex.C8. The copy of death certificate of Sh. Ramji Lal, since deceased is also placed on file by complainants as Ex.C9 and copy of his driving licence is also placed on file by complainants as Ex.C4. As per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, said Ramji Lal was having 14 days time for transfer of insurance of the vehicle in question in his name after registration/ transfer of vehicle in his name which was purchased by him on 24.06.2020 and he also obtained NOC from Registering Authority, Fatehabad just within two days of purchase, so it was his clear intention to get the vehicle transferred immediately in his name within time but unfortunately just within five days of purchase of vehicle i.e. in the early morning of 29.06.2020 he met with accident while driving the said car as he could not see the sand on the bank of road and the car turned turtle and he received severe injuries and died on the same day of accident. As such complainants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to insured amount under coverage of personal accident to owner driver because said Ramji Lal stepped into the shoe of owner Hari Singh on the date of accident. So, the contentions raised by ops are wrong and baseless and have been taken only to avoid their legal liability and are against the law. In this regard reliance can also be placed on the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Birmati and others, FAO No. 762 of 2021 decided on 04.03.2022 in which it has been held that “Accordingly it is held that the deceased who was driving the borrowed vehicle had stepped into the shoes of the owner including his right to invoke insurer’s contractual liability for personal accident and that the heirs of the deceased were/ are entitled to recover compensation from the insurer for the death of the victim of accident in terms of the insurance contract with the owner of the vehicle.” The above said authority is also fully applicable in the present case. Further reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sunita Devi & Ors. Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. RP No. 1408 of 3015 decided on 29.04.2016. So, the repudiation of the claim of complainants is hereby set aside and complainants being legal heirs of deceased Sh. Ramji Lal are entitled to sum insured amount of Rs.15 lacs from the ops under coverage of personal accident to owner driver as per policy schedule Ex.C6 and Ex.R9 in which it is clearly mentioned that PA cover under Section 3 for owner-driver is Rs.15,00,000/-.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainants will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President,
Dated: 06.09.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
