Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/297/2012

Kavita Gupta w/o late shri Manoj Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 297 of 2012.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 21.3.2012.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 19.10.2015.

1. Kavita Gupta aged about 28 years wife of late Sh. Manoj Gupta son of Sh. Aditya Gupta.
2. Baby Saima Gupta aged about 3 years minor d/o Sh. Manoj Gupta, through her mother Smt. Kavita Gupta, as her natural guardian and next friend.

 

Both residents of House No.109, Ward No.4, Badri Nagar, Ponta Sahib (H.P.) presently residing at H. No.33, Rajeev Garden, Bank Colony, near Sharma Flour Mill, Kansapur, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                             …Complainants.

                                    Versus

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office: SCO 138, 1^st Floor, Sector-17, Commercial Belt, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                               …opposite party.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Balbir Singh,Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                Sh. Ajay Shakti Goel, Advocate, counsel for OP.            

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Kavita Gupta widow and baby Saima Gupta minor daughter of deceased Sh. Manoj Gupta being LRs has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of Rs. 4,91,000/- alongwith interest as insured amount i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-  on account of accidental death of Sh. Manoj Gupta, husband of complainant No.1 ( under personal accidental claim) and Rs. 2,91,000/- as insured value of  car  bearing No. HP-17-B-7390, which was totally damaged in a roadside accident and also to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 7700/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant No.1 is the widow and complainant No.2 is minor daughter of Shri Manoj Gupta, who was registered owner of car bearing registration No. HP-17-B-7390, Model 2010 which was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 102017/31/11/007790 valid from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012 for a sum assured of Rs. 2,91,000/- and a premium of Rs. 6756/- was paid in this regard to the OP. According to the said policy registered owner of the vehicle/ car in question was also covered for Rs. 2,00,000/- in case of accidental death. Copy of insurance policy is Annexure C-1 and copy of registration Certificate as Annexure C-2. On 28.11.2011 Sh. Manoj Gupta, while driving his car bearing No. HP17-B-7390 met with an accident near village Faizpur, on Jagadhri-Ponda Road and sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died at the spot. Postmortem of the dead body of Sh. Manoj Gupta was conducted in G.H. Yamuna Nagar. Copy of P.M.R is Annexure C-3. In this regard an FIR No. 96 dated 29.11.2011 under section 279/304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar. Copy of FIR is Annexure C-4. Thereafter, the complainant lodged claim for Rs. 2,00,000/-, on account of death of her husband Sh. Manoj Gupta and for Rs. 2,91,000/- on account of total damage of car with the OP Insurance Company. A surveyor was deputed by the OP Company. who took the possession of the car and also got completed all the formalities to pay the claim. No objection of the mother of deceased for payment of compensation was also given to the OP as required by them but the OP did not give any response to the same. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP and requested to do the needful but the OP flatly refused to pay the claim of own damage of car as well as personal accident. Since the vehicle was hypothecated with the State Bank of India (ADB) Branch Ponta Sahib and the bank is pressuring the complainant for payment of loan amount, so, the complainants are facing hardship and suffering financial loss as the OP has not made the payment of accidental death claim i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- as well as total damage of car i.e. Rs. 2,91,000/-, which clearly shows that the OP has dishonest intention and OP has committed deficiency and negligence in service by not making the payment of claim. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP Ins. Company. appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint not maintainable, no locus standi, stopped from filing the present complaint, complaint is false and frivolous, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP, no territorial jurisdiction and on merit it has been mentioned that the car bearing registration No. HP17-B-7390 was duly insured with the OP Ins. Company vide policy No. 102017/31/11/007790 w.e.f. 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2102 for a sum insured of Rs. 2,91,000/- and in respect of claim of the said vehicle an intimation was received by the OP Ins. company on 29.11.2011 and vide letter dated 15.12.2011, it was required to the complainant to produce “legal Succession Certificate issued by the competent Civil Court” but despite intimation to the complainant, the complainant has not submitted the required document, so the claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 12.1.2012 as “No Claim” and in this regard, an intimation was given to the complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Kavita Gupta as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Post Mortem Report as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of FIR No.96 dated 29.11.2011 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of No objection Certificate in the shape of affidavit of Kusum Gupta mother of Manoj Kumar as Annexure C-5, Photo copies of driving license as Annexure C-6 and C-7, Photo copy of Legal heir certificate issued by Executive Magistrate Ponta Sahib as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of Succession Petition under section 372 of Indian Succession Act decided by Civil Court on 30.9.2013 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of No Objection Certificate of S.B.I. Ponta Sahib as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP failed to tender any evidence despite last opportunity, hence the evidence of OP was closed by court order dated 8.12.2014.  

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainants reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                      It is admitted fact that the husband of complainant was registered owner of car bearing registration No. HP17-B-7390 as per registration certificate (Annexure C-2) which was insured with the OP vide comprehensive policy bearing No. 102017/31/11/007790 valid from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2.91,000/- which is evident from insurance policy( Annexure C-3). It is also an admitted fact that registered owner-cum-driver of car in question was also covered for the personal accident insurance with the OP for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and regarding this an amount of Rs. 100/- was paid as premium to the OP. it is further not disputed that an accident took place on 28.11.2011 near village Faizpur, District Yamuna Nagar which is evident from FIR bearing No. 96 dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure C-4) lodged in police station Khijrabad, District Yamuna Nagar and husband of the complainant Sh. Manoj Gupta expired and postmortem was conducted vide PMR No. NIC/PMR/48/YNR/2011 which is evident from the Forensic Report Annexure C-3. It is further not disputed that a claim was lodged with the OP company on account of death of Sh. Manoj Gupta and on account of damage of the car bearing No. HP17-B-7390.   

8.                     The only plea of the OP company is that the complainants have not submitted the Legal Succession Certificate issued by the competent Civil Court with OP Company despite intimation so many times vide letter dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure R-1), letter dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure R-3). So, the claims of the complainant were closed as “NO CLAIM” and in this regard an intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 12.1.2012 (Annexure R-2) and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the case of the complainant is duly proved from the evidence on the file. The deceased Manoj Gupta was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident which is evident from copy of DL Annexure C-6 and further the car bearing Registration No. HP17B-7390 was also registered in the name of her husband Sh. Manoj Gupta (since deceased) which is evident from Annexure C-2. It is also evident from the contents of the FIR that Sh. Manoj Gupta husband of complainant No.1 expired due to the injuries while driving his car on 28.11.2011. So, the complainants alongwith other LRs are entitled to get the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- under personal accident as per insurance policy Annexure C-1. It has been further argued that as the car of the husband of complainant No.1 totally damaged in that accident and on this account also complainants have suffered financial loss and are entitled to get sum insured of Rs. 2,91,000/- as total loss from the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainants further argued that the OP has failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the version of the complainant as the OP has closed the claim file as “No Claim” only on account of demand of legal succession certificate from the competent civil court. Further learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP has illegally repudiated the claim of complainants as “No Claim” as there was no necessity of the Legal Succession Certificate in this case and referred the case law titled as Rukhsana (Smt) and others Versus Nazrunnisa (Smt.) and another, 2000 (9) SCC page 240 in which it has been held that Succession Act 1925-Section 370-390 (Pt.X)- Succession Certificate- Held, not required in case of compensation sanctioned on account of death (of employee in course of duty in Kuwait in this case)- Legal representatives can claim such amount on their own account- Under the Act, succession certificate can be granted only in respect of “debts” or “securities” to which deceased was entitled- Compensation is not such an asset belonging to deceased- High Court erred in directing family members (widow, mother and others) of deceased seeking disbursement of compensation amount (Rs. 18,83,385) to produce succession certificate before the Court hearing the claims.

                        Compensation- Death of employee in course of duty- Held, succession certificate not required for disbursement of compensation amount- Court need only decide who the legal representatives are and the share each is entitled to on the basis of the applicable personal law.

10.                   Further referred the case law titled as Mr. Jitendra Balkrishna Madan vs. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. FA No. 647 of 2009 decided on 8.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai wherein reported the Apex Court Judgment Rukjhsana (Smt.) and Others Vs. Nazrunnisa (Smt. ) and others.

11.                   Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that a succession certificate has also been issued by the Civil Court Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide its judgment dated 30.9.2013. Copy of which is Annexure C-8 and the same was supplied to the OP despite that the OP has not made the payment of genuine claim of the complainants.

12.                   After hearing both the parties and after going through the documents on the file, we are of the considered view that arguments advanced by the counsel for OP Insurance Company is not tenable. What we take into consideration is that this is not a case of debt or securities wherein the succession certificate was necessary, therefore, the pleadings of the OP Insurance Company for the Succession Certificate are of no consequence, we are supported in this behalf by reported judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Rukhsana (Smt. ) and others Vs. Nazrunnisa (Smt.) and others (supra)  and therefore, the instructions of the OP’s that Succession Certificate was necessary is not a sound reason to repudiate the claim.

13.                   Apart from that the case of non supply of documents which is reflected in the repudiation letter, is also not justified because it is also evident from the Annexure C-9 that a Succession Certificate has been issued in favour of the complainants Smt. Kavita Gupta widow of deceased Manoj Gupta and Baby Saima Gupta daughter of deceased Manoj Gupta and Smt. Kusum Gupta wife of Sh. Aditya Gupta mother of deceased vide judgment dated 30.9.2013 by the Civil Court of Smt. Nidhi Bansal Addl Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in Succession case No.3 of 2012.

14.                   Further the OP Ins. company has failed to file any surveyor report or investigator report to prove that the car in question was not totally damaged and the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as total loss and in the absence of any documentary evidence, we have no option except to accept the version of the complainant that the car in question belongs to the husband of complainant No.1 was totally damaged in the accident and on this account she alongwith other LRs is entitled to get sum insured of Rs. 2,91,000/-.

15.                   Further as a matter of fact in the reality, insurance companies in India are functioning arbitrarily with a view to escape and avoiding its legal and factual liabilities to make the payment of sum assured and doing fake acting in dramatically, opposite of the principle of fair play and decency and in that series it is not even caring that their wrong actions are causing wrongful losses to their customers.

16.                    Hence from the perusal of aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that the OP Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of complainants on flimsy ground and as such it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Co. hence, the complainants are entitled for relief.

17.                   Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainants with cost of Rs. 11000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses and also direct the OP to pay a sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of personal accident and further to pay Rs. 2,91,000/- on account of total loss of the car bearing No. HP-17B-7390 totaling Rs. 4,91,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 12.1.2012 till realization in equal share to (i) Smt. Kavita Gupta wife of late Sh. Manoj Gupta, (ii) Baby Saima Gupta daughter of late Sh. Manoj Gupta and (iii) Smt. Kusum Gupta wife of Sh. Aditya Gupta mother of deceased Manoj Gupta as per succession certificate. It is also made clear that an amount of Rs. 2,91,000/- on account of total loss of the car bearing No. HP-17B-7390 will be released to the aforesaid persons subject to transfer of R.C. in the name of OP Insurance Company and further completing all the formalities as required by the Insurance Company and further depositing the damaged car with the OP. Further the share of the minor Baby Saima Gupta will be deposited in the shape of FDR in the Nationalized Bank till attaining the age of majority. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainants shall be at liberty to initiate action as per law.

 18.                  The complaint is decided in above terms accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 19.10.2015.    

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.