Haryana

Kaithal

324/19

Tejo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Aditya Garg

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

                            

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.324/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.10.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:07.08.2023.

1. Tejo Devi age about 56 years widow of Sh. Vijay Pal R/o Village Bhanpura, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
2. Neelam Devi d/o Sh. Vijay Pal (wife of Vikram R/o Mohalla Kalriya Naguran (Jind).

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company, Policy Serving Office Unit No.5 # 2^nd Floor, N.K.Tower, G.T.Road Panipat, Distt. Panipat.

….OP.

        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. Aditya Garg, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Tejo Devi etc.-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the husband of complainant No.1 namely Vijay Pal was the owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-64A-4756 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy No.015867861000 valid for the period w.e.f. 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019.  The said policy includes P.A. which is covered for driver/owner and for this purpose, the OP charged extra amount from the deceased Vijay Pal.  The case of complainants is that on 03.01.2019 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and Vijay Pal had died in Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal on the same day.  In this regard, FIR No.12 dt. 01.01.2019 was got registered in P.S.City, Kaithal.  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP did not settle the claim of complainants.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that no claim has ever been intimated for death of insured Mr. Vijay Pal and no documents have been filed by the complainants to prove lodging of claim with the answering OP; that the complaint filed by the complainant is without any cause of action as no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the answering OP; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the deceased Mr. Vijay Pal had obtained Auto Secure Commercial Vehicle Package Policy bearing No.0158678610 to cover the risk of his Auto Rickshaw for the period 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that the husband of complainant No.1 namely Vijay Pal was the owner of vehicle bearing No.HR-64A-4756 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP vide policy No.015867861000 valid for the period w.e.f. 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019.  The said policy includes P.A. which is covered for driver/owner and for this purpose, the OP charged extra amount from the deceased Vijay Pal.  It is further argued that on 03.01.2019 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and Vijay Pal had died in Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal on the same day.  In this regard, FIR No.12 dt. 01.01.2019 was got registered in P.S.City, Kaithal.  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP did not settle the claim of complainants.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Ld. counsel for the complainants has placed reliance upon the case law titled as UII Vs. Gaj Pal Singh Rawat 2009(3) CPC 368 (Hon’ble National Commission); Bant Singh Vs. NIA 1999(2) CPC 139 (Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab), Prabhi Devi and another Vs. OIC 2009(2) CPC 629 (Hon’ble H.P.State Commission).

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that no claim has ever been intimated for death of insured Mr. Vijay Pal and no documents have been filed by the complainants to prove lodging of claim with the OP.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  In the present case, the complainants have claimed the P.A. claim of Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to Vijay Pal (since deceased), husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2.  We have perused the policy in question as per Annexure-C4 which was valid from 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019, wherein the extra premium of Rs.100/- was added by the OP and Under Section III:PA to Owner Driver CSI:Rs.2,00,000/- was claim amount.  During the subsistence of the policy, Vijay Pal expired, the death certificate Annexure-C3 is on the file.  The complainants have also placed on file learner license of Sh. Vijay Pal as per Anneuxre-C8.  After the death of Sh. Vijay Pal, the complainants lodged the claim with the OP.  The Investigator was appointed by the OP, who has submitted his report dt. 14.02.2020 as per Annexure-R2, wherein he has mentioned in conclusion that “On the basis of our inquiry from the villagers, Mr. Vijay Pal got expired in a road accident. Family of the deceased failed to provide the copy of Driving License.”

                In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the complainants has placed reliance upon the case law titled as UII Vs. Gaj Pal Singh Rawat (supra), wherein it is mentioned that “Insurance claim-Repudiation-Driver not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident-The cause of accident was sudden fall of stones, one of which hit the vehicle in question as a result of which the vehicle fell into river-District Forum allowed the complaint-State Commission came to the conclusion that since the accident had no nexus with the license of the driver-No fault of driving on the part of driver proved-Accident took place due to sudden fall of 5-6 big stones rolled down from mountains on the road proved by investigator report-No fault of driving on part of driver provided-The findings of lower Fora based on material on record-No interference required in revision.”

        Similarly, he has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Prabhi Devi and another Vs. OIC (supra), wherein it has been held that “It was the duty of the Development Officer of insurer to ensure the validity of driving license at the time of giving policy in which he failed, repudiation of claim cannot be upheld.”

         The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainants are fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authority submitted by ld. counsel for the OP titled as Roshani Devi & others Vs. NIC decided by Hon’ble National Commission bearing revision petition No.4569 of 2014 date of decision: 15.01.2015 is not distinguishable but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, in view of ratio of law submitted by ld. counsel for the complainants as-well-as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the contention of OP that the family of complainants did not provide the copy of driving license has no force.  Hence, the complainant No.1, wife of Sh. Vijay Pal (since deceased) is entitled for P.A. claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.  So, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is pertinent to mention here that Neelam Devi, complainant No.2, daughter of Sh. Vijay Pal is married lady and she is not dependent upon her father, so, she is not entitled for any claim amount.  

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant No.1 within 45 days from today, in default this amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant No.1.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.          

11.         In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP 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.:07.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.