DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 666
Instituted on: 17.11.2016
Decided on: 25.04.2017
Pushpinder Singh son of Shri Raghbir Singh, resident of village Kakarwal, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Sangrur.
2. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Ms.Gurpreet Kaur, Adv.
For Ops : Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Pushpinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Jagjit Singh son of Hazara Singh, resident of village Kakarwal, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur was the owner and driver of truck bearing registration number PB-32-G-8594 model 2008 for the period from 3.9.2015 to 2.9.2016 under policy number 3613003150100000890 and was insured under the personal accident cover for Rs.2,00,000/- in case of accidental death. The complainant Pushpinder Singh was recorded as nominee of the above said Jagjit Singh being his nephew. Further case of the complainant is that the insured/deceased (referred to as DLA in short) died in an accident, which took place on 3.5.2016 at about 6.00 am near Giani Di Workshop after crossing truck union, Dhuri as the DLA was driving the truck in question at that time. After the accident, the said Jagjit Singh was brought to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri, but he was declared to be brought dead. Further it is averred that the accident took place all of a sudden and there was no fault of any person and information was given to the police, which recorded report number 15 dated 3.5.2016 in PS City Dhuri. Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the documents, but the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.9.2016 on the ground that the DLA died due to shock, which does not fall within the scope of policy. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured DLA till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the Ops have been dragged into unwanted litigation, that complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings, that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. On merits, it has been admitted that the truck in question was insured under the policy subject to the terms and conditions and the DLA was covered under personal accident for Rs.2,00,000/- regarding accidental death. But, it is stated that in the present case, the cause of death of the DLA was shock and death was due to shock cannot be treated as injury caused by the accident. It is further stated that it is well settled law that the claim will be admissible only if the death was caused by an accidental injury. It is stated that as per the post-mortem report there was no sign of any internal or external injury on the body of the DLA. Thus, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3affidavits, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 photographs, Ex.C-9 death certificate, Ex.C-10 copy of claim form, Ex.C-11 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-12 copy of collection receipt, Ex.C-13 copy of DDR, Ex.C-14 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-15 copy of PMR, Ex.C-16 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-17 postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP/2 copy of terms and conditions,Ex.OP/3 copy of reply to the notice, Ex.OP/4 affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact that the DLA had got insured his truck bearing registration number PB-32-G-8594 from the Ops for the period from 3.9.2015 to 2.9.2016 under the policy in question and the complainant was nominee under the policy as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record Ex.C-11. The case of the complainant is that the DLA Shri Jagjit Singh died in an accident, which took place on 3.5.2016 at about 6.00 A.M. near crossing truck union, Dhuri when all of a sudden the truck in question struck with a tree and the DLA died at the spot, which fact is also supported by the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 and further this fact is supported by the affidavits of Bhupinder Singh and Shri Jangir Singh, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The death certificate of the DLA on record is Ex.C-9 and the photographs of the accidental truck on record are Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8. Further the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-13 copy of DDR dated 3.5.2016, wherein this fact is clearly mentioned that the DLA died in an accident on 3.5.2016 as the truck struck with the tree while the DLA was driving the truck in question. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the DLA died due to shock only, but to support this contention, the Ops have not produced on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Since there is clear cut evidence on record that the DLA died in an accidental death, while the truck was being driven by the DLA on 3.5.2016 and the truck struck with the tree. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the Ops have miserably failed to establish on record that the DLA due to shock.
6. Now, coming to the point of quantum, it is an admitted fact that the DLA was insured under the policy for Rs.2,00,000/- in case of accidental death, as occurred in the present case.
7. The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.
8. In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.11.2016 till realisation. OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 25, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
