Haryana

Panchkula

cc/204/2014

Santosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance co. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Abhineet Taneja.

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	204 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	16.10.2014
Date of Decision	:	05.06.2015

1.       Santosh aged 37 years, w/o Sh.Sultan

2.       Mamta aged 18 years D/o late Sh.Sultan

3.       Sanjeev aged 15 years S/o late Sh.Sultan

4.       Suman aged 12 years D/o late Sh.Sultan

5.       Gaurav aged 9 years S/o late Sh.Sultan

Claimants No.3 to 5 being minor through their mother cum natural guardian Smt. Santosh

All R/o House No.1444, Indira colony, Sector-17, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                      ….Complainants

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 325, IInd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula (insurer of Jeep bearing regn. No.HR-68-A-5864).

                                                                         ...Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Abhineet Taneja, Advocate, for the complainant. 

Mr.Sukam Gupta, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Op with the averments that the husband of complainant No.1-Sh.Sultan Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) insured his vehicle/Jeep bearing No.HR-68-A-5864 from the Op for Rs.19,599/- for the period from 13.06.2012 to 12.06.2013. The deceased was owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and he plied the vehicle on roads for the purpose of transporting goods from one place to another to earn his livelihood. On 28.05.2013, when the deceased-Sultan Singh alongwith his cleaner-Sanjeev Kumar was going to Bathinda after loading material from Industrial Area, Panchkula in his vehicle, near village Bahadurpur, P.S. Longowal, Distt. Sangrur, a Truck Trolla bearing No.PB-03-U-5719 was coming from the opposite direction with high speed rashly & negligently hit the Jeep/vehicle of the deceased and was died. FIR No.72 (Annexure C-3) dated 28.05.2013 was lodged under Section 304A, 337 and 427 IPC at P.S. Sangrur. In the accident, the vehicle was totally damaged and was taken to custody by police which was released on Superdari from the court. The complainant No.1 gave the intimation to the Op about the death of deceased in accident and requested several times for the payment of insured amount of vehicle but the concerned official refused to accept the same on the ground that the file might be submitted in the head office at Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant sent two claims i.e. one pertaining to own damage claim and another pertaining to PA through registered post in the office of OP at Chandigarh (Annexure C-4 & C-5). After receiving the files, the concerned official of Op asked the complainant No.1 to complete certain formalities and the complainant No.1 provided all necessary documents to the Op but the Op did not settle the claim of the complainants. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complaint is accompanied by 3 complainants having same interest/facts/relief and had not complied with the provisions u/s 12 (1) (c) the CP Act, 1986. It is submitted that the vehicle was a transport vehicle and the same was being used for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant has not yet been repudiated by the Op but is still pending for want of verification of the driving license from the concerned RTO. It is submitted that after receiving intimation regarding the death, the Op immediately deputed the investigator to investigate the matter who submitted his report on 18.03.2014. It is submitted that after going through the report submitted by the investigator, the OP tried to get the DL in question of the deceased issued from LA, Farukhabad verified as in this case gentility of the DL is most important issue for settle the claim but the authority in Farukhabad was giving excuses all the time. Hence, due to the act and conduct of the LA, Farukhabad claim is still pending. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the OP has not tendered the evidence after affording last opportunity and the evidence of the OP has been closed by court order vide order dated 11.03.2015.
4. Heard. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Undisputedly, admitted facts in the case are that the deceased-Sultan Singh was the owner-cum-driver of the Jeep bearing registration No.HR-68-A-5864. The vehicle was duly insured from 23.06.2012 to 12.06.2013 with regard to own damage claim and to personal accident cover for the owner-driver for Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that Sultan Singh owner himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident i.e. on 27/28.05.2013 during the period of validity of the insurance policy. The Op appointed Sh.Ajmer Lal Pundeer as investigator on 14.03.2014 to investigate the facts of death case of driver-cum-owner as per policy. The investigator collected the claim papers on the same day from the office which were duly submitted by the complainant with the OP. The investigator submitted his report on 18.03.2014 with the finding that accident is genuine wherein owner-driver of vehicle Mahindra Bolaro Maxi Truck No.HR-68-A-5864 died in the accident on 27/28.05.2013 at Bahadurpur road. The investigator also sent all the necessary documents collected by him from the complainant alongwith his report to the Op.
6. The Op in their written statement has stated that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP as the claim of the complainant has not yet been repudiated by the Op but is still pending for want of verification of driving license from the concerned RTO. The Op further mentioned in the written statement that on receipt of the investigator report dated 18.03.2014, the Op after going through the said report tried to get the DL in question of deceased issued from L.A., Farukabad verified as in the present case genuinely of the DL is most important issue as the claim is to be settled total on the point of DL but the said authority in Farukabad is giving lame excuse all the time and hence due to the abovesaid act and conduct of the L.A, Farukabad claim is still pending. But the Op has failed to produce any correspondence made by them with the L.A., Farukabad regarding verification of DL. They also failed to produce any document what steps have been taken by them in this regard.
7. The challenge to the maintainability of the complaint on the averment that the insured vehicle was being used for a commercial purpose and the complainants cannot claim themselves to be a ‘consumer’ with the definition of Consumer Protection Act, deserves to be negative in view of the categorical law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in IV(2009) CPJ (S.C.) and the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in IV (2012) CPJ 3 (S.C.). No law to the contrary has cited during the course of hearing.
8. It is, thus, a pure and simple case where the complainants have been unjustly denied claim on an unproved premise that the verification of the DL is in progress and the DL issuing authority at Farukhabad is delaying the verification on one pretext or the other. Firstly, there is no documentation to prove that the verification exercise had been undertaken at all. Even otherwise, the averred delay is not adequate enough to impede the grant of the claim by Ops, particularly when it own surveyor has noticed the DL particulars in the verification report. After all, poor widow and minor children of the deceased insured cannot be made to wait for the clearance of the claim till eternity. The validation of averment by the Ops would amount to travesty of justice and we cannot be a party to it.
9. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant submitted the claim with the Op immediately after the death of the deceased-Sultan Singh which were collected by the investigator from the office of Op on 14.03.2014. Since the OP has not decided the claim of the complainant till date which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
10. In view of the above, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be succeeded and the same is hereby allowed. The OP is directed as under:-

1. To pay the insured value of the vehicle No.HR-68-A-5864 alongwith 9% interest and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of personal accident claim of the deceased-Sultan Singh alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt of the claim submitted by the complainant.

(ii)     To Pay Rs.10,000/- for compensation as mental agony and physical harassment.

(iii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

05.06.2015           ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT