The complainant Kishan Das has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, P.N.B Met Life Company Ltd. and one another (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 5,98,500/- as sum assured, Rs. 60,000/- as mental torture, Rs. 35,000/- as litigation cost with 18 % interest p.a. from the date of death of insured person till realization.
The, brief, facts of the case is that the complainant has filed this case as nominee and son of diseased Mohan das ( D.L.I). Further case is that D.L.I Mohan Das had purchased a L.A. policy from P.N.B Met Life Insurance on 08-09-2014 for sum assured Rs. 5,98,500/- after payment of first installment. The validity said policy was from 10-09-2014 to 10-09-2034. The further case is that the agent of the company filled the proposal form in English before the officer of the company of which father of the complainant put his signature. The payment of the premium was half yearly. The policy no.- 21386707. The further case is that on 10-10-2014. D.L.I Mohan Das fail ill suddenly and he died during caused of carrying out him to the doctor. The further cases is that is complainant filed death claim before the opposite company after fulfilling necessary formalities but on 12-10-2015 the same was repudiated by o.p company on the ground that the disease D.L.I. was suffer with Asthama disease before insurance but and the same was not disclose by him to the company and got the policy.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of first premium receipt annexure-1-, photocopy death certificate of Mohan Das (disease) annexure-2-, photocopy of death certificate of disease Mohan Das granted by Mukhiya of village-Pupri annexure-3-, photocopy of repudiation letter annexure-4.
On issuance of summon o.ps appeared and filed their w.s. on 31-05-2018 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition of complainant with costs. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that complaint petition is falls, malicious, incorrect and has been filed with malafide intent so the same is liable to be dismissed ( 26) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It has been further mentioned that the complainant does not fall within definition of ‘Consumer Disputes’ under Act. It has been further mentioned that Late Mohan Das (D.L.I) had submitted is proposal form after fulfill and completely understand it terms & condition of Met Endowment Saving Planning and in the same he replied with he was suffering from any disease nor taking any medical treatment. Issuance of policy bond bearing no.- 21386707 and risk coverage commencement dated 10-09-2014 are an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that complainant was made nominee in the proposal form. The o.ps had annexed proposal form as O.P-! as annexure- (A) in para-7 of his w.s. It has been stated that the proposal from which was dully signed by D.L.I
The complainant has examined herself as AW-1 on deposition. She has also filed the photocopy of surveyor report and original copy of cash memo of H.Y . Motors and certified copy of FIR of Sahebgang P.S. Case No.- 112/2013.
The o.ps have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that L.A. cum driver had not valid and effective D.L. to driver the transport vehicle but he has admitted in the w.s. that he had only valid license to drive L.M.V.
On perusal of R.C. annexure-1, it transports that the vehicle no.- BR06GA-5882 was registered in vehicle clause are light. So the above documents shows that the vehicle in question was light motor vehicle. As per section-2 (21) of the M.V. Act definition of L.M.V has been mentioned which is as follows-
“L.M.V” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or motor car or tractor or road roller the unloaded weight of any of which, does not exceed” (7500) kg. O.ps have not adduced any evidence to show that the weight of the vehicle was more than 7500 kg. The o.ps have not adduced evidence to the point to show that the vehicle in question was heavy vehicle. In registration certificate R.C. annexure-1. The gross vehicle weight of the vehicle has been mentioned as 930 kg so the vehicle in question comes under category of L.M.V. The D.L. of the driver was valid only for L.M.V. as terms and conditions mentioned over the policy. In the circumstances o.ps company have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of having D.L. of L.M.V.
The o.ps have raised in his w.s. that nominee of the deceased Smt. Anjani Devi @ Anjali Devi lodged a claim with them only for own damage claim. He has also raised the question in the w.s. that the claimant did not claim for the death of Sahdeo Roy as per policies against death of owner cum driver, so the question of the claim for life does not arise. The claimant Anjani Devi @ Anajli Devi has examined herself as AW-1 on affidavit and she has stated in para-2 of her examination in chief that she had lodged a claim before Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. for her husband late Sahdeo Roy and the registered Tempu (riksha )in her name bearing no.-BR06GA-5882 and its claim no. is 10000/31/14/c/011101. She has also filed photocopy of surveyor report to show the claim status.
O.ps have also admitted in para-7 of the their w.s. that the insured late- Sahdeo Roy had taken a policy from them vide bearing no.- 10004/31123/003263 period 30-10-2012 to 29-10-2013 and the insurance premium was deposited for own as well as owner cum driver accident policy for Rs. 2 lacs. So, it is an admitted fact that the late Sahdeo Rai taken policy for damages of the vehicle as well as owner cum driver accident policy for Rs. 2 lacs. The complainant has also filed photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule annexure-2 to prove the above facts, on perusal of annexure-3 it transpires that the damage for the vehicle was insured for Rs. 1,52,000/- and the L.A. was insured for Rs. 2 lacs. On perusal of above facts, it transpires that the question raised in the w.s. of the o.ps are not maintainable .
The complainant has filed the annexure regarding death of Sahdeo Roy as annexure-4 a report of M.V.I as annexure-5 to show the damage caused to the vehicle annexure-6, photocopy of FIR and annexure-7, as charge sheet no.123/2013 in Sahebagang P.S. Case No.112/2013. The complainant has also filed photocopy of retail invoice/cash memo as annexure-9. So, the repair cause of Rs. 1,29,844/-. He has also filed the original copy of the retail invoice /cash memo. As such the complainant has been able to prove his its claim.
The complainant has stated in the complaint petition that her husband was insured with Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Certificate cum policy schedule annexure-2 also shows that policy was taken from Sri Ram General Insurance company Sandha Damber, post and p.s-Motipur Muzaffarpur. She has not stated a single in his complaint petition that legal Manager of Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. (o.p) has only role. In this case in our considered opinion B.M. Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Alhera complex Bhagawanpur chowk is responsible to pay the claim.
Accordingly, complaint petition is allowed and the o.p no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs/- due to death of L.A. Rs. 1,25,844/- for repairing of the damaged Dhala Tempu, to the complainant Rs. 20,000/- as mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order, on failure they shall be responsible for payment of aforesaid amount with 9 % interest p.a. till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
