Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/97/2023

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA ADV.

31 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/97/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	16/05/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	31/05/2023

 

 

 

 

1.   The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, through its Regional Manager, SCO 109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

2.   The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, through its Divisional Manager, SCO 4-5-6, Block-E, Calibre Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura, District Patiala.

 

Both Appellants through their Authorized Signatory, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Regional Office, SCO 109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

1.   Smt. Manjit Kaur widow of Sh. Bhinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh (deceased).

 

2.   Ms. Jaspreet Kaur daughter of Sh. Bhinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh (deceased).

 

3.   Rajwinder Singh son of Sh. Bhinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh (deceased).

 

     All residents of Village Behdali, Bhaddal, Tehsil Kurali, District Rupnagar, Punjab.

 

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

          PREETINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the Appellants.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.02.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/509/2021, in the following terms:-

“4.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under:-

i.   to pay ₹9,00,000/- to complainant No.1, ₹3,00,000/- to complainant No.2 and ₹3,00,000/- to complainant No.3 (totaling ₹15,00,000/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 5.8.2021 till realization of the same.

ii.  to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;

iii. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5.   This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

 

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeals, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainants/ Respondents that they were the legal representatives of deceased, Sh. Bhupinder Singh, who was the registered owner of Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle bearing Regn. No.PB-87-3011 (hereinafter referred as “subject motorcycle”). On the evening of 30.04.2020 at about 8:00 p.m. when deceased Sh.Bhupinder Singh was driving the subject motorcycle in slow speed and Sh.Harbans Singh was pillion rider and when they reached near Bhukheri turn, the insured vehicle was knocked down by a Canter/Truck bearing registration No.PB-65-AX-3605 (hereinafter referred as “offending truck”) from behind while overtaking the subject motorcycle as a result of which both Bhupinder Singh and pillion rider had fallen down on the road and received serious injuries. Both of them were immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Kharar where Sh.Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinder Singh was declared dead by the Medical Officer; whereas, Sh.Harbans Singh was referred to PGI, Chandigarh.  Post mortem of deceased Sh. Bhupinder Singh was also conducted at Civil Hospital, Kharar. The said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending truck. The matter was also reported to the Police which resulted in registering FIR No.128 dated 01.05.2020 u/s 279, 427, 304-A IPC at Police Station City, Kharar.  As the subject motorcycle was insured with the Appellants/OPs covering the risk of registered owner-cum-driver under the head of PA cover for ₹15,00,000/-, complainants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the aforesaid amount. Intimation qua the accident was given to the OPs, but, the genuine claim of the complainants was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the deceased was not possessing valid and genuine driving licence at the time of accident which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Thereafter, complainants again moved an application to the OPs requesting them to clear the claim, but, with no result.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

4.      Upon notice, the OPs resisted the consumer complaint inter alia, pleading that the subject motorcycle was insured with the OPs, but, alleged that after receiving information about the accident, OPs had deputed Sh.A.S.Vaish to investigate the case who during investigation found that the driving licence, which the deceased was possessing at the time of accident, was forged which fact was also further verified from the Licensing Authority. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Respondents/Complainants, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/OPs.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It is the case of the Appellants/OPs that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.

 

11.      Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ OPs argued though the subject motorcycle was insured with the Appellants/OPs and the deceased (Sh.Bhinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh) was covered under PA cover of ₹15,00,000/-, but the claim was not payable under the said head as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the accident had not taken place due to the rash and negligent diving of the insured (deceased) Sh.Bhinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh, whose motorcycle was knocked down by the offending truck from behind and at that time the driver of the offending truck was overtaking the subject motorcycle and the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck, which is clear from the copy of the F.I.R. (Annexure C-9). There is no fundamental breach of the policy by the deceased as the said accident had not taken place due to his rash and negligent driving. Had the accident taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, same could have been said to be a fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. Thus, it is safe to deduce, the claim of the Complainants/ Respondents cannot be repudiated on the ground that the driver did not have valid driving licence and there is no fundamental breach of the policy, in as much as, when it is borne on record that the subject motorcycle of the insured was hit by the offending truck from behind as a result of which he had fallen down and succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, the Ld. Lower Commission has aptly relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No.4647 of 2003 decided on 17.7.2003 and “Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance”, Civil Appeal Nos.49-50 of 2016 decided on 7.1.2016. Once, it is proved on record that the personal accident (PA) cover for the sum of ₹15,00,000/- was available to the deceased, which fact is also evident from the policy, the Complainants/ Respondents are entitled for the same. The Ld. Lower Commission has, therefore,  rightly held the complainants (being the legal heirs of the deceased) jointly entitled for the claim amount to the tune of ₹15,00,000/- and repudiation of the claim of the complainants by the OPs was held to be deficiency in service. To our mind no case is made for any interference in the findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants/OPs.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off as having become infructuous.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

31^st May, 2023                                 

Sd/-

                      (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”