Punjab

Patiala

CC/19/427

Usha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh C.S Mittal

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 427/2019
Date of Institution	:	16.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.3.2023

 

1. Usha aged about 48 years wife of late Sh.Baljit Singh, mother of late Amritpal Singh alias Ravi, R/o 979/4, Bagichi Het Ram, Patiala.

 

2. Tara aged 23 years wife of late Amritpal Singh alias Ravi, daughter of Yuv Raj, R/o Jatehar Bihal, P.O.Katrain, Katrain (22/35 Katrain Kullu) Himachal Pradesh -175129.

 

3. Kavya aged about 5 years daughter of Tara (minor Kavya daughter of late Amritpal Singh) now through her natural guardian and mother Tara wife of  late Amritpal Singh alias Ravi, daughter of Yuv Raj, R/o Jatehar Bihal, P.O.Katrain, Katrain (22/35 Katrain Kullu) Himachal Pradesh -175129.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Patiala through its Divisional Manager, Patiala.
2. Mohali Automobiles (12832) C-38, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Opposite Gate No.1, Swaraj Factory, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Chamandeep Mittal, counsel for complainants.

                             Sh.Alok Mathur, counsel for OP no.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.         

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Usha and others (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainants are as follows:
3. That Amritpal Singh (since deceased) purchased a new vehicle Platina 100 Alloy ES bearing chassis No.MD2A76AY XJRE75608 on 1.11.2018 from OP No.2.At the time of purchase of said vehicle, OP No.2 issued policy (Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule Motorized two wheelers (5 years) Package policy-Zone B) having No.231400/31/2019/4549, covering the period 1.11.2018 to midnight 31.10.2019 and an amount of Rs.644/-in excess was charged for the said policy. Amritpal Singh is the registered owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle.
4.           On 26.6.2019, while driving the said vehicle Amritpal Singh died, on account of imbalance of vehicle near to over-bridge Rajpura, District Patiala. As per terms of the said Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy, legal heirs of Amritpal Singh are entitled to Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of accident from both OPs No.1&2.Compaliant No.1 visited several times to the offices of the OPs but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs but nothing was done. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
5. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs. At the first instance both  OPs No.1&2 appeared through their respective counsel but thereafter neither anyone  appeared on behalf of OP No.2 nor filed written statement and OP No.2 was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.1.2021.
6. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it raised certain preliminary objections.
7. On merits, it is admitted that insurance policy  No.231400/31/2019/4549 for the period 1.11.2018 to midnight 31.10.2023 was issued in the name of Amritpal Singh son of Baljit Singh, resident of House No.578, Sector 56, Palsora. It is alleged that since there are breach of terms and conditions of policy as such OP No.1 is not liable to pay any claim. It is submitted that on receipt of intimation of accident, the competent authority of the OP deputes Sh.Jagjit Singh Sethi, Investigator, who after investigation submitted his detailed report dated 26.12.2019 as per which the insured was having two wives Tara since 5.10.2013 according to death certificate and Ritu Dhawan since 2017 according to DDR and the complainants have concealed this fact from this Hon’ble Commission. As such the complainants are entitled for any amount of claim from the OP. The complaint is also alleged to be premature on the ground that the investigation report was prepared on 26.12.2019 which was submitted to the OP on 31.12.2019 while the complaint was filed on 25.11.2019.Further the complainants are not entitled for any amount of claim on the ground that accident took place on 26.6.2019 and the claim is pending for legal heir certificate of deceased. It is prayed that complainant is directed to provide succession certificate of legal heirs of deceased, enabling the OP to further process the claim of complainants. It is alleged that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8. In evidence, ld. counsel for complainants has furnished affidavit of complainant No.1,Ex.CA, affidavit of Tara, complainant No.2,Ex.CB and has also tendered documents,Ex.C1 copy of Aadhar card of Amritpal Singh, Ex.C2 copy of Aadhar card of Usha Devi,Ex.C3 copy of Aadhar card of Tara,Ex.C4 copy of Aadhar card of Kavya,Ex.C5 copy of temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C6 copy of tax invoice, Ex.C7 copy of form 21,Ex.C8 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C9 copy of RC, Ex.C10 copy of driving licence of Amritpal Singh, Ex.C11 copy of postmortem report,Ex.C12 death certificate of Amrit Pal Singh, Ex.C13 copy of form of detail of ashes in Gurudwara Sahib dated 28.6.2019, Ex.C14 & Ex.C15 postal receipts of legal notice,Ex.C16 copy of legal notice and closed the evidence.
9. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Mukesh Malhotra, DM OIC, Ex.OPB affidavit of Jagjit Singh Sethi, Investigator  alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP3 copy of survey report and closed evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. Sh.Amrit Pal Singh S/o Late Sh.Baljit Singh & Usha complainant No.1 and husband of Tara, complainant No.2, had purchased motor cycle on 1.11.2018 from M/s Mohali Auto Mobiles, vide tax invoice dated 1.11.2018, Ex.C6, for a consideration of Rs.45901/-.Said vehicle was insured vide policy No.231400/31/2019/4549 and the insurance was valid for the period 1.11.2018 to 31.10.2019, Ex.C8. As per the said insurance policy the registered owner cum driver was covered under personal accident cover of Rs.15,00,000/- and in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event for Rs.1,00,000/- as per Section II-1(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988. The said vehicle was registered vide registration no.CH01BU9858, valid upto 15.11.2023, copy of which is Ex.C9 and was being driven by Amrit Pal Singh, who was holding a  driving licence No.PB-11200901152047, valid upto 30.12.2028, copy of which is Ex.C10 ,met with an accident on 26.6.2019 leading to the death of Amrit Pal Singh. Copy of death certificate of Amrit Pal Singh is Ex.C12.Complainants then approached OPs for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and also served legal notice, Ex.C16. However, no fruitful purpose was served.
12. OP No.1 has relied upon the investigation report , prepared by Jagjit Singh Sethi, Investigator, who in his report, Ex.OP3 has submitted that ,

“1. It’s confirmed that Amritpal Singh is actual and registered owner of Bajaj Platina motor cycle and Insured Bajaj Platina motor cycle as per office record of R.A.Chandigarh & is found correct and genuine Verification Screen Report .

2. It’s confirmed that insured Bajaj Platina motor cycle was driven by insured at the time of accident and his driving licence is valid and effective at the time of accident and is found correct and genuine verification screen report.

3.  
4.  

13. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that deceased Amritpal Singh was having two wives namely Tara wife of deceased Late Amrit Pal Singh and Investigator has produced on record copy of marriage certificate  No.69 dated 5.10.2013, as per which Tara is the first wife of deceased Amritpal Singh since 5.10.2013. He has also produced on record birth certificate of Kavya daughter of deceased Amritpal Singh and Tara (complainant No.2) with date of birth being 6.3.2015. As per the said report these documents were handed over to the Investigator by the mother of deceased i.e. complainant No.1. However, the Investigator has also reported that the DDR No.GD0025 dated 27.6.2019 was lodged by Ritu Dhawan wife of late Sh.Amrit Pal Singh and as such Ritu Dhawan was 2^nd wife of deceased since 2017. On the basis of above report complainants were asked to provide succession certificate of the legal heirs of deceased for the settlement of claim on 17.7.2019, 11.11.2019 and on 13.12.2019 by the Investigating Officer but no such document was provided by the complainants due to which their claim could not be settled.
14. From the above discussion, it transpires that Tara is the first legal wife of deceased Amrit Pal Singh w.e.f.5.10.2013 and the deceased was also having daughter from the said wedding, named Kavya, whose birth date is 6.3.2015. There is nothing on the record to show that the deceased had divorced his first wife and married 2^nd time after divorcing first wife. Also the 2^nd wife is alleged to have been living at Chandigarh where there is no custom/tradition prevailing as per which   2^nd marriage is allowed even in the presence of first legal married  wife. Even as per Section 5 of Hindus Marriage Act, 1956 and Indian Succession Act, 1926, the 2^nd wife is not a legal heir when the husband re-marries while the first wife is alive. The 2^nd marriage can be considered legal and valid under certain exceptions such as;
1.  
2.  

However, the partner in the 2^nd marriage must be aware of that instance. If, there is a tradition/custom to have more than one living wife like under Muslims law where the husband can have more than one wife.

15.  
16. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that complainants No.2 & 3 are the surviving legal heirs of deceased Amritpal Singh. Complaint is accordingly partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed as follows:

1. To settle the claim of the complainants No.2&3 to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annumfrom the date of filing of complaint i.e.16.10.2019 till realization, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which OP No.1 shall pay interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from 16.10.2019 till realization.

2. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/-as compensation which is inclusive of costs, for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants within the prescribed period.

The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President