BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 193

Date of Institution : 22.6.2010

Date of Decision : 25.10.2010

1. Manjit Kaur Wd/o Nachattar Singh S/o Maghar Singh.

2. Gurmeet Singh S/o Late Nachattar Singh S/o Maghar Singh aged about 45 years.

Both R/o Vill. Hari Nau, Tehsil Faridkot.

...Complainants

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, Tehsil Faridkot.

...Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Sandeep Tayal counsel for the complainant.

Sh. V.K. Monga counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties regarding the non payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith 12% per annum interest with regard to death of Nachattar Singh S/o Maghar Singh R/o Vill. Hari Nau, Tehsil Faridkot, insured vide cover note No. 280670 by the opposite party valid for the period from 31.10.2009 to 30.10.2010 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the deceased Nachattar Singh who was the husband of complainant No. 1 and father of the complainant No. 2 was working as driver on Truck No. PB-13-Q-0919. The said truck alongwith deceased Nachattar Singh driver of the above truck was got insured with the opposite party vide cover note No. 280670 issued by the Kotkapura Branch valid for the period from 31.10.2009 to 30.10.2010. The deceased Nachattar Singh while driving the said truck on 11.5.2010 met with an accident near Paddar Patiya, Gujrat. This accident took place due to the negligence of Truck No. GJ-09-1743 which was wrongly parked on the road side and as a result of the accident said Nachattar Singh died at the spot due to the accidental injuries and burns. The complainants are the only legal heirs of the deceased Nachattar Singh. After the death of said Nachattar Singh the complainants approached the opposite party and requested for the payment of the compensation as per terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- but despite of the repeated requests the opposite party has failed to pay the compensation, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 29.6.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking legal objections that the complainants never approached the opposite party with regard to any claim and the opposite party never knew about any claim of the claimants. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The deceased Nachattar Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle No. PB-13-Q-0919, so the opposite party is not liable for any compensation. The present complaint requires leading of elaborate evidence as the present dispute is a complicated question of facts and evidence and only Civil Court is competent to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is denied if Nachattar Singh was working as driver on Truck No. PB-13-Q-0919. The complainant has not furnished the policy of insurance. It is also denied that the alleged deceased Nachattar Singh ever met with an accident or died in the accident. The claimants never approached the opposite party nor the opposite party failed to pay any compensation. No claim was ever lodged by the complainants with the opposite party. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cover note Ex.C-2, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-3, copy of Panch Nama Ex.C-4, copy of FIR Ex.C-5, copy of death certificate Ex.C-6, copy of driving license of Nachattar Singh Ex.C-7, affidavit of Lakha Singh Ex.C-8, affidavit of Roshan Lal Ex.C-9, copy of RC of truck bearing No. PB-13-Q-0919 Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of S.K. Sharma, Divisional Manager, OIC, Ferozepur Ex.R-1, copy of policy Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the insured Nachattar Singh having died in an accident while driving truck No. PB-13-Q-0919, complainants being his legal heirs are entitled to insurance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The opposite party has however failed to pay the said amount inspite of their repeated requests for this purpose.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party countered the aforesaid allegations on the ground that the complainants never approached the opposite party to claim any amount. He further contended that deceased Nachattar Singh had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, so the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim.

10. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is not disputed that Trolla No. PB-13-Q-0919 was insured with the opposite party vide cover note Ex.C-2. From Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-policy schedule Ex.R-2 it is evident that Roshan Lal son of Walaiti Ram, resident of Hari Nau Road, Kotkapura was the owner of the said truck. As per affidavit of Lakha Singh Ex.C-8 Nachattar Singh deceased was working as driver on the said truck at the time of accident i.e. 11.5.2010 while former was working on the said truck as cleaner when the trolla being driven by Nachattar Singh deceased struck against the standing truck resulting in his death. FIR in this connection was got registered with the police station Thrad on 12.5.2010. Roshan Lal owner also stated likewise vide his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-9. In support of ownership photocopy of registration certificate of the trolla in question have been tendered as Ex.C-10. Ex.C-7 is copy of driving license of Nachattar Singh which is valid from 1.5.2009 to 6.4.2012. Opposite party took no step to get the license of the Nachattar Singh deceased verified to support the contention raised by their counsel that Nachattar Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the said transport vehicle. The driving license in question is valid for driving transport vehicle. The opposite party has failed to prove any principle or authority that the vehicle in question was not covered under the transport vehicle. In affidavit of S.K. Sharma Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Ferozepur Ex.R-1 the factum of Nachattar Singh having been insured with the opposite party has not been disputed. Therefore, in our considered opinion complainants are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- as insurance amount on account of death of Nachattar Singh. 11. In so far as claim of compensation and litigation expenses are concerned though no material is forthcoming that complainants have lodged any claim with the opposite party but in view of the fact that they had to make a resort to this Forum by itself indicates that their claim has not been entertained by the opposite party and they have not been given the benefit of insurance so far. Therefore, the amount payable to the complainant as compensation can be arrived as Rs. 3500/-.

12. In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainants Manjit Kaur and Gurmeet Singh stands accordingly accepted in part with a direction to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as insurance claim and Rs. 3500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, inconvenience and litigation expenses, totaling Rs. 2,03,500/- to the complainants in equal share, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 2,03,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the decision of this complaint till realization of the amount. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 25.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)