Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 48.

                                                          Instituted on     : 30.01.2015.

                                                          Decided on       : 10.05.2016.

Gyatri Devi w/o Late Amir Singh R/o Rajendra Colony, Bhiwani Chungi, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Office 313, Model Town Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Principal Officer.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.O.P.Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that husband of the complainant was registered owner of the vehicle no.HR-12U-8326 and the same was got insured with the opposite party vide policy no.35380031120100012171 for the period 23.03.2013 to 22.03.2014. It is averred that husband of the complainant met with an accident on 08.11.2013 when he was on his way at Hisar Road Rohtak on his motorcycle and was hit by a Canter no.HR-46C5672 which was coming rashly and fastly in a very high speed and resultantly he was seriously injured and was rushed to PGIMS, Rohtak and succumbed to his injuries.  It is averred that after the death of her husband, complainant contacted the opposite party with all relevant documents and claimed the amount of Rs.100000/- as per terms of the policy but the opposite party refused to accede the request of complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.100000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party has deputed the investigator and as per the statement of complainant and brother of deceased, the deceased was standing near Motor Cycle no.HR-12U-5672 and talking with his brother Rajbir and in the meanwhile, Canter No.HR-46C-5672 came from T point Bhiwani Road and struck with the standing motor cycle and hit directly to the Amir Singh who was standing on the road side. It is averred that insured Amir Singh neither driving/riding nor sitting on the insured motorcycle when he met with accident. So as per terms and conditions of policy and GR-36 Indian Motor Tariff the risk of deceased was not covered. So complaint is not maintainable and the company is not liable to pay any compensation.  It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and death of Amir Singh  who was registered owner of the vehicle no.HR-12U-8326 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that as per FIR Ex.C1 the accident had taken place by hitting the motorcycle by a Canter no.HR-46C-5672 and in that accident Amir Singh was seriously injured and was succumbed to his injuries.  After the death of Amir Singh, complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R2 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured late Sh. Amir Singh was not driving/riding the said insured motorcycle and was standing nearby the motorcycle talking with his brother. So the claim does not come under the purview of the policy.  To prove its contention opposite party has placed on record report of investigator Ex.R3 which is based on the statements of some persons which are annexed with the report as per which deceased was standing near his vehicle. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that at the time of accident, deceased was driving his motorcycle and to prove his contention, ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the copy of judgment Ex.C8 and copy of written statement Ex.C9 placed before the Court of Sh.N.K.Singha, MACT, Rohtak. 

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties  it is observed that statements of some persons annexed with the investigation report are merely a photocopy and are not supported with the affidavits of the persons and hence cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, as per the certified copy of written statement filed before the MACT, Rohtak Ex.C9, it is alleged that the accident had taken place due to the sole fault of deceased as the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash, negligent manner and has struck his motorcycle into the standing vehicle of answering opposite party. However the fact of driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner was not proved as the matter was compromised before the MACT Court. But from the alleged documents it is proved that the deceased was driving the motor cycle at the time of accident. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as per policy, the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim under the policy as the risk is covered to the extent of Rs.100000/- to the owner cum driver in case of death, where insured motorcycle was involved in the accident.  

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.01.2015  till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date decision  failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.

 9.                              Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

10.05.2016.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member