Haryana

Sonipat

23/2015

1. SMT. SURESH DEVI W/ JAGBIR SINGH,2. PAWAN S/O JAGBIR SINGH,3. JYOTI D/O JAGBIR SINGH,4. DHANNI DEVI W/O OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.23 of 2015

                                    Instituted on:27.01.2015

                                    Date of order:08.10.2015

 

1.Smt.Suresh Devi wife of Jagbir Singh since deceased son of Om Parkash,

2.Pawan son of Jagbir Singh,

3.Jyoti daughter of Jagbir Singh

4.Dhanni Devi wife of Om Parkash (mother of deceased) all the residents of W.No.13, Silani Gate, Jhajjar.

 

…….Complainants

 

                   VERSUS

 

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.  through its Branch Manager, Rohtak.

                                  …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the husband of the complainant no.1 was owner of Tata Ace no.HR63A/7362 which was insured with the respondent for the period 10.10.2008 to 9.10.2009 and unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident and husband of the complainant had died on 16.9.2009. FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The deceased was insured under personal accident policy  and in this way, the complainants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the respondent under P.A. Cover.  The complainant has submitted all the documents i.e. post mortem report, driving licence, copy of cover note, copy of FIR, but the respondent has avoided to make the payment of the claim amount on one pretext or the other and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainants have not submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim and in the absence of the said documents, claim of the complainants could not be settled.  The complainants are liable for their own acts and deeds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       In the present case, the accident, death and insurance of insurance policy cover Personal accident has not been disputed by the respondent. The respondent’s plea for non-settlement of the claim is that the complainants have not submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim.

         On the other hand, to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the complainant has placed on record the postal receipt Ex.C10 and copy of application (Ex.C11) wherein it is specifically mentioned that “the copy of cover note, PMR, FIR, Death certificate and other relevant documents are attached herewith.”

         Meaning thereby, all the relevant documents which were required by the respondent for the settlement of the claim, were already sent by the complainant to the respondent well within time. So, there is patent deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not paying the claim amount to the respondent.  In our view, the complainants have been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Thus, they are entitled to get the claim amount of Rs.2 lacs from the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) to the respondent alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization.

         The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 08.10.2015