Haryana

StateCommission

A/8/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

POONAM KAPOOR - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD GUPTA

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 08 of 2016

Date of Institution: 05.01.2016

Date of Decision : 18.11.2016

 

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. SCO No. 36-37, Sector-17A, Chandigarh through its duly authorised office.

                                     

                                                          Appellant –Opposite Party

 Versus

 

1.      Poonam Kapoor wife of late Sh. Nand Kishore Kapoor,

2.      Jeetan Kapoor (Minor)

3.      Rahul Kapoor (Minor) sons of Sh. Nand Kishore Kapoor, through their mother and guardian Smt. Poonam Kapoor wife of late Sh. Nand Kishore Kapoor, all residents of House No. 2168/5, Shyam Colony, Jhansa Road, Kurukshetra Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondents –Complainants

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                            

Argued by:          Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant

Sh. P.R. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was allowed and Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for damage to the life of owner of the insured vehicle alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

2.      Poonam Kapoor, Jeetan Kapoor and Rahul Kapoor-complainants being legal heirs filed complaint with allegations that Nand Kishore Kapoor since deceased owned motor-cycle No. HR07E-9493 which was insured with Insurance Company vide policy (Exhibit R-2) covering the period 09.04.2002 to 08.04.2003.  On 24.11.2002, Nand Kishore Kapoor while driving his motor-cycle met with an accident and suffered fatal injuries. He died on 15.01.2003.  Postmortem of his dead body was conducted.  Complainants lodged claim with the Insurance Company for payment of compensation on account of death of Nand Kishore Kapoor under Personal Accident Cover but not being paid by the Insurance Company, complaint was filed. 

3.      Notice being issued the opposite parties contested the complaint by raising plea that no premium for personal accident cover of owner-cum-driver was charged. Therefore, the complainants were not entitled to get compensation on account of death of Nand Kishore Kapoor.  Besides this the deceased was not holding any valid driving licence.

4.      District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and passed orders as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this order.

5.      We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

6.      Though the claim was denied on two grounds viz. that the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the personal accident cover premium was not paid, therefore, the complainants were not entitled for any compensation.  However, complainants placed on the file the driving licence of the deceased authorizing him to drive motor-cycle, scooter and tractor, so this plea of Insurance Company is rejected.  The another plea was that since personal accident cover premium was not charged therefore, no compensation was payable on account of death of Nand Kishore Kapoor insured owner-cum-driver.  We have perused the policy (Exhibit R-2) which shows that the insured had paid the premium under the heading ‘A: own damage basic Rs.350/- and liability to public basic Rs.77/-’.  Thus certainly no premium for personal accident cover was paid.  Insurance Company has placed on file two different policies of different vehicles to indicate that separate premium is payable under the heading of “Compulsory PA Cover for Owner-Driver of CSI 1,00,000 (IMT-15) Rs.50/-”.  Thus faced with this situation, learned counsel for complainants-respondents contended that own basic damage would also cover the injuries suffered by the insured in accident.  This contention is completely out of context.

7.      We have downloaded the definition of own damage cover from the website which defines as under:-

“This however, refers the ‘liability only’ insurance that covers legal liabilities arising out of an accident (damage to a third person and his vehicle)… Vehicles with own damage cover get insured for damages caused by fire, explosion, earthquakes, floods and storms as also burglary and terrorism”.

8.      The complainants can only seek compensation in case the insured had paid premium for specified coverage and personal accident cover, premium not being paid, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. Though the learned counsel for the complainants/respondents has relied upon M/S Modern Insulators Ltd. V/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6895 of 1997 decided on 22.02.2000 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, this case is not applicable at all in this case.  In that case the issue only was as to whether the exclusion clause can be made applicable without the terms and conditions being supplied to the insured.  The case in hand is entirely on different facts. District Forum did not consider all the facts of the case and erred in allowing the complaint. Thus, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.  

 

Announced 18.11.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President