BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 97 of 2021
Date of Institution : 19.04.2021
Date of Decision : 15.03.2024
1. Meetu Bansal, aged about 29 years wife of Ved Parkash son of Shri Chand, 2. Manish Goyal, aged about 6 years minor son of Ved Parkash, 3. Pragati aged about 3 years minor daughter of Ved Parkash through their natural guardian, next friend and real mother namely Meetu Bansal i.e. complainant no.1, resident of village Jodhka, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., situated at 2nd Floor Bala Ji Towers, Sangwan Chowk, Opposite Jagdish Nursing Home, Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa, Haryana- 125055.
…….Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Karamjeet Handa, Advocate for the complainants
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op).
2. It is averred that complainants no.2 and 3 are minors and are unable to pursue in their own capacity, hence the present complaint is also being filed by complainant no.1 on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of minors being their natural guardian and next friend who has no adverse interest against minors. It is further averred that Sh. Ved Parkash son of Shri Chand, resident of village Jodhka, Tehsil and District Sirsa was real husband of complainant no.1 and real father of complainants no.2 and 3. He was owner of a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. HR24Y-0865 which was got insured by him from op vide policy No. 0176145946 for the period 21.09.2018 to 21.09.2019 vide which vehicle as well as death cover of the owner/ driver/ cleaner were insured. That in the intervening night of 16/17.04.2019, the above said Bolero met with an accident and an FIR No. 136 dated 17.04.2019 under Sections 304-A/279/337/338 in Police Station Sadar Fatehabad was registered. It is further averred that in the above said accident, the insured vehicle was fully damaged and owner of the insured vehicle namely Ved Parkash died at the spot. That as per terms and conditions of policy, complainants applied for vehicle damage claim as well as death claim of owner Ved Parkash but opposite party has failed to pay any claim so far. The complainants visited many times in the office of op with regard to their above said claims but the matter was postponed by op under one and another pretext. It is further averred that in the said policy, Shri Chand i.e. father of insured Ved Parkash was nominee who has already expired and as such claim was filed by all the complainants as they are legal heirs of the deceased. That op has adopted unfair trade practice and has also caused deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainants and complainants are entitled to an amount of Rs. seven lacs for damage of vehicle and Rs. One lac for death of owner/ driver and are also entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses from op. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint. The facts of the case are that a claim was reported for alleged loss dated 17.04.2019 for accident of insured vehicle and resultant death of Mr. Ved Parkash after a delay of almost 3½ months on 31.07.2019. After receipt of intimation of loss, the answering op appointed IRDA licensed surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss. After survey, the loss was assessed for Rs.5,49,000/- and concerned dealing person was required to submit requisite documents for further processing of the claim and enable answering op to decide the claim in accordance with the policy, terms and conditions. It is further submitted that answering op verbally requested many times and also sent letter dated 13.03.2020 to the complainant/ person coordinating with the answering op for submission of following documents:-
* Reason for delay in intimation of claim
* Driving licence of late Sh. Ved Parkash (driver at the time of accident)
* CKYC (duly signed by Legal heir)
* ID and address proof of legal heir
* Claim form (Motor Insurance Claim) and Personal accident (claim form) duly filled and signed by Legal heir
* Death certificate of Shri Chand (nominee as per policy)
4. It is further submitted that however in absence of any revert, the claim of complainant could not be processed and instead of providing documents to the answering op, the complainants preferred to file present complaint which is required to be disposed of being pre-mature one. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of insurance company or its officials and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as op neither has any branch nor registered office in Sirsa and accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Fatehabad. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and for want of knowledge, pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated and it is also submitted that any claim under the policy is payable subject to it’s terms and conditions and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant Smt. Meetu Bansal in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. policy certificate cum policy schedule cum receipt Ex.C2, registration certificate of vehicle Bolero Ex.C3, FIR Ex.C4, post mortem report of Ved Parkash deceased Ex.C5, their aadhar cards Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, aadhar card of Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Shri Chand Ex.C9, driving license of Ved Parkash since deceased Ex.C10, death certificate of Shri Chand Ex.C11, order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the Court of Sh. Vinay Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa regarding succession certificate and death certificate of Sh. Ved Parkash Ex.C13.
6. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, authorized signatory as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Varinder Kumar Bhatia, Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.R2, Motor Survey report Ex.R3, letter dated 13.03.2020 Ex.R4 and policy documents i.e. certificate and terms and conditions Ex.R5.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. Admittedly, the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 Sh. Ved Parkash @ Ved Goyal who was owner of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. HR-24Y-0865 got insured his said vehicle from op for the period 21.09.2018 to 20.09.2019 for sum insured amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which fact is also evident from policy schedule Ex.C2 placed on file by complainants as well as placed on file by op itself. Even in the policy schedule placed on file by op itself, it is evident that PA cover for owner-driver was of Rs. two lacs. It is also not in dispute the insured vehicle met with an accident in the intervening night of 16/17.04.2019 i.e. during the period of policy in question due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Truck (Dumper) bearing registration No. HR-57A-0066 and owner of the insured vehicle namely Sh. Ved Parkash died in the said accident. The Surveyor appointed by op in his survey report Ex.R3 admitted that matter of accident has been reported to police on the same day i.e. on 17.04.2019. Further from copy of FIR Ex.C4, it is evident that matter was reported to the police on 17.04.2019 at 11.25 AM i.e. without any delay and FIR was registered against the driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-57-A-0066. It is also evident from the report Ex.R3 that insured vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and accordingly Surveyor in his detailed report Ex.R3 assessed the net liability of the insurer to the sum of Rs.5,49,000/- qua damage of the vehicle excluding amount of Rs.50,000/- being wreck value. However, the op has not paid any claim to the complainants on the above said ground contained in letter dated 13.03.2020 Ex.R4 but however, we are of the considered opinion that op is not justified in not paying the claim regarding damage of vehicle and personal accident claim to the complainants on the above said ground. In the present case it cannot be said that there was delay on the part of complainants in claim intimation to the op because police was intimated on the very day of accident and police registered the FIR against offending vehicle as such no prejudice is caused to the insurer/ op in this case for delay, if any on the part of complainants who are widow and minor son and daughter of the deceased who lost husband and father in the above said accident and father of the deceased namely Shri Chand had already expired on 24.10.2005 and as such in these types of cases, delay if any to the insurance company should have been ignored. Moreover, the Surveyor appointed by op duly verified the all the details about the accident and recorded the statement of the occupant of the vehicle in question namely Mr. Hem Giri and as such op has wrongly withheld the genuine claim of the complainant. Further more, the copies of other documents i.e. DL of deceased, succession certificate in favour of complainants issued by competent court of jurisdiction and death certificate of Shri Chand are already on file. So we are of the considered opinion that in such like cases where a family consisting of old aged mother of deceased, his wife and minor children of the age of four and three years is fully dependent upon the deceased and have lost young age person of about 40 years of their family should have been paid claim on priority basis and insurance company is not justified in not paying the claim amount on such immaterial and casual grounds as mentioned in the above said letter despite the fact that its Surveyor already verified all the aspects. The op has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the widow of deceased who lost her husband at such an early stage and has responsibility of her minor children and also of widow mother-in-law. The complainants are entitled to claim amounts being legal heirs of the deceased Ved Parkash. As such complainants are entitled to claim amount of Rs.5,49,000/- as assessed by the Surveyor appointed by op and are also entitled to personal accident claim of the owner of the vehicle i.e. Rs. two lacs from the op besides compensation for harassment etc. Since the insured amount of vehicle was Rs. six lacs and Surveyor assessed net liability to the sum of Rs.5,49,000/- and value of wreck has been assessed as Rs.50,000/- and has been excluded, therefore, it is also made clear that op will not be entitled to salvage of the vehicle.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the insurance claim amounts of Rs.5,49,000/- as well as Rs.2,00,000/- (total Rs.7,49,000/-) to the complainants alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.04.2021 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, mental agony to the complainants and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. All the complainants are entitled to receive the above said amounts in equal shares and the shares of the complainants no.2 and 3 who are minors shall be deposited in some Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority but however, interest amount on the deposited amounts of their shares shall be used by complainant no.1 for their study and upbringing etc. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 15.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
