Haryana

Kaithal

244/19

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anil Kumar

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.244 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:28.03.2023.

Madan Lal Goel aged 55 years son of Sh. Mohan Lal r/o House No.186/14, Advocate Basti, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/313 Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Karapakkam, Chennai-60097 through its Manager.
2. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited, Branch Office SCO No.82, Ist. Floor above Vijay Bank, Sector-40-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.
3. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited at Eakansh Motor’s Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Anil Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel, for the complainant.   

                Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the respondents.No.1 & 2.

                Sh. Rachit Gupta, Adv. for the respondent No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Madan Lal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the son of complainant namely Ankit Goel purchased a car Ritz LDI make Maruti Suzuki bearing registration No.HR-09D-5387 and got insured the same with the respondents No.1 & 2 though respondent No.3 vide policy No.MOP3829346 valid for the period w.e.f. 30.08.2016 till 30.08.2017.  It is alleged that on 23.07.2017 the son of complainant started his journey from Panipat to Cheeka in his above-mentioned vehicle.  The said vehicle was being driven by Ankit Goel and Ashish Kumar, his brother-in-law was also sitting on the rear seat of said vehicle.  The said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Arpana Hospital, Karnal.  In the said accident, the son of complainant namely Ankit Goel died and the driver of offending vehicle bearing No.UP-16AT/1690 ran away from the spot.  An FIR No.104 dt. 24.03.2017 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered in P.S.Madhuban.  Information regarding accident was given to the respondents and the surveyor of respondents assessed the value of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,50,990/-.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the respondents and submitted all the necessary documents but the respondents did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written statements separately.  Respondents No.1 & 2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the claim of complainant was closed for no-submission of documents and treated as “No claim” since the complainant despite several reminders failed to submit the necessary claim documents which would have enable the answering respondents to process the claim.  Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being pre-mature; that the accident took place on 24.03.2017 and claim was intimated with the answering respondents on 08.04.2017 i.e. after a delay of 15 days, which is gross violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions.  It is further submitted that the complainant was requested to submit the consent letter signed by the legal heir, medical record of the other occupant who was travelling the vehicle at the time of accident, ID proof of the legal heir, legal heir certificate, NOC from other legal heirs, RC cancellation certificate, NOC and Form 35 from the financier, cancelled cheque of the legal heir and passport size photo of the legal heir but the complainant did not submit the said documents, so, the claim of complainant was rightly closed for non-submission of documents and treated as “No claim”.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                Respondent No.3 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that the respondent No.3 has no concern whatsoever with the respondents No.1 & 2.  As regards the claim of insurance, if any, the same is not related to respondent No.3 in any manner.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre C-1 to Annexure C-13 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the son of complainant namely Ankit Goel purchased a car Ritz LDI make Maruti Suzuki bearing registration No.HR-09D-5387 and got insured the same with the respondents No.1 & 2 though respondent No.3 vide policy No.MOP3829346 valid for the period w.e.f. 30.08.2016 till 30.08.2017.  It has been argued that on 23.07.2017 the son of complainant started his journey from Panipat to Cheeka in his above-mentioned vehicle.  The said vehicle was being driven by Ankit Goel and Ashish Kumar, his brother-in-law was also sitting on the rear seat of said vehicle.  The said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Arpana Hospital, Karnal.  It has been further argued that in the said accident, the son of complainant namely Ankit Goel died and the driver of offending vehicle bearing No.UP-16AT/1690 ran away from the spot.  It has been further argued that a FIR No.104 dt. 24.03.2017 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered in P.S.Madhuban.  Information regarding accident was given to the respondents and the surveyor of respondents assessed the value of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,50,990/-.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the respondents and submitted all the necessary documents but the respondents did not settle the claim of complainant.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and so, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the claim of complainant was closed for no-submission of documents and treated as “No claim” since the complainant despite several reminders failed to submit the necessary claim documents which would have enable the respondents to process the claim.  Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being pre-mature.  It has been further argued that the accident took place on 24.03.2017 and claim was intimated with the answering respondents on 08.04.2017 i.e. after a delay of 15 days, which is gross violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions.  Ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has further argued that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on nominee and legal heirs are entitled to claim as per succession.  He has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Arun Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Jaya Singh reported in 2009(10) SCC 680 (MP High Court).

8.             Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that the respondent No.3 has no concern whatsoever with the respondents No.1 & 2.  As regards the claim of insurance, if any, the same is not related to respondent No.3 in any manner.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It has been held in case titled as Smt. Shweta Singh Huria & others Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santosh Huria & another (RFA No.310/2020) by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that “Under Section 39(7), Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 nominee now has a beneficial interest in the amount payable and is no longer a mere receiver nominee”. 

10.            As per amendment in Insurance Act, 2015, Section 39-Nomination by policy-holder, sub sections 7 & 11 are relevant, which are mentioned as under:-

                “(7) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where the holder of a policy of insurance on his own life nominates his parents, or his spouse, or his children, or his spouse and children, or any of them, the nominee or nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable by the insurer to him or them under sub-section (6).

                (11) Where a policy-holder dies after the maturity of the policy but the proceeds and benefit of his policy has not been made to him because of his death, in such a case, his nominee shall be entitled to the proceeds and benefit of his policy.”

                So, it is clear from the aforementioned sub section 7 & 11 of Section 39 of Insurance Act, 2015 that the nominee is entitled to the proceeds and benefit of his policy.  Hence, the objection raised by ld. counsel for the Ops that the nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on nominee has no force.  The authority submitted by ld. counsel for the Ops on this point is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  The complainant is nominee in the present case as is clear from the policy Annexure-R1, so, the matter of legal heirs is not applicable in the present case.  The documents demanded by the OPs vide letter dt. 29.05.2017 as per Annexure-R4 i.e. consent letter signed by legal heir, identification proof of legal heir (Voter ID/Driving licence), passport size photo of legal heir, legal heir certificate, NOC from other legal heirs, cancelled cheque of insured’s legal heir are not necessary documents.  Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.No.1 & 2.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the Ops No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.3,50,990/- to the complainant within 45 days and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and physical agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  However, it is made clear that after making the aforesaid payment of Rs.3,50,990/- the complainant shall deposit the RC cancellation certificate and NOC & Form 35 from the financier with the OPs No.1 & 2 within 30 days.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

12.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:28.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.