Date of filing:- 22/09/2020.

Date of Order:-30/07/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 73 of  2020.

            Dulari Rohidas, aged about 35(thirty five) years wife of late Dukha Rohidas, At-Badapali, Po-Kharsal, Ps. Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh.         .....     .....         .....      Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

            Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd., 2^nd Floor, SO-3A, Varun Plaza, Po- Budharaja, Ps. Ainthapali, Dist. Sambalpur, Pin-768004.

                   .....            .....       .....    Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri J.Sarangi, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party  :-        Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.30/07/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the husband of the Complainant has insured his new TVS XL 100 motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OD-17P-5091 having  Engine No. DP127A3852 and Chassis No. MD621EP13J2LA2474 comprehensively with the Opposite Party on payment of ₹ 5,083/-(Rupees five thousand eighty three)only which was included ₹ 750/-(Rupees seven hundred fifty)only for coverage of his own life risk under the head “PA cover for owner driver of ₹ 15 lakh” and a premium of ₹ 274/-(Rupees two hundred seventy four)only was included for coverage of own damage of the vehicle under IDV of ₹ 32,662/-(Rupees thirty two thousand six hundred sixty two)only. The Complainant is the nominee in the insurance policy. During the currency of the policy on 20-01-2019 evening while the husband of the Complainant was proceeding from his village Badapali to Bargarh by driving the insured vehicle faced with an accident near village Dang under Bargarh Town Police Station being dashed behind the back of a truck negligently parked on the road. Due to this accident, he sustained grievous injuries on vital organs of his body to which the succumbed at the spot itself and the insured motorcycle got extensively damaged. On receiving information Bargarh Town Police started investigation about the accident by registering PS Case No. 38 Dt.21-01-2019 which corresponded by CT No. 77/19 of the Court of SDJM Bargarh. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held by the investigating police officer and postmortem was also conducted by the doctors of  the District Headquarter Hospital Bargarh on his requisition. After due investigation, he submitted final report in the said case. The Complainant being the nominee under the policy informed the fact of the accident to the Opposite Party/Insurer through registered post and raised claim for reimbursement of ₹ 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only as was spent for repair of the vehicle and ₹ 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for accidental death of the owner driver/insured and also supplied necessary documents. A pleader notice was also served with a request for settlement of both the claim. But the Opposite Party remained silent. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission for deficiency in service of the Opposite Party.

2)         The case of the Opposite Party Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd is that the Opposite Party has filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that the husband of the Complainant Dukha Rohidas had insured his new TVS XL 100 Motor Cycle bearing Regd No. OD-17P-5091 having  Engine No. DP127A3852 and Chassis No. MD621EP13J2LA2474 comprehensively with the Opposite Party on payment of required premium including the coverage towards personal accident. The Complainant denied the fact that Dukha Rohidas had assigned his wife, the present Complainant as his nominee. Further the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant has never intimated the Opposite Party regarding the death of the policy holder Dukha Rohidas in an accident which amounts to violation of policy conditions on the part of the insured. Hence the Opposite Party is not liable for any compensation. There is no any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.

3)         Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?         
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

Issue No.1(one)

4)         The policy is admitted. The husband of the Complainant Dukha Rohidas had taken an insurance policy from the Opposite Party TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No. 064001/ABIL/0187572864/000000/00 which covers compulsory PA cover from 13-11-2018 to 12-11-2019. The Complainant paid premium of ₹ 5,083/-(Rupees five thousand eighty three)only including ₹ 750/-(Rupees seven hundred fifty)only for PA cover and ₹ 274/-(Rupees two hundred seventy four)only for own damage. The policy covers ₹ 15 lakh PA claim and the IDV of the vehicle is ₹ 32,662/-(Rupees thirty two thousand six hundred sixty two)only. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant is the nominee. After perusal of insurance policy it reveals that the Complainant Dulari Rohidas is the nominee in the policy. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant never intimated about the accident to the Opposite Party. But the Complainant filed the intimation letter dated 15-04-2019 and postal receipt dated 16-04-2019 and advocate notice dated 08-08-2020. Hence the plea of the Opposite Party is not acceptable. When the policy is admitted and the insured paid premium for compulsory PA cover and own damage claim, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to settle the claim. But the Opposite Party did not settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2(two)

5)         For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get ₹ 15 lakhs for PA coverage and ₹ 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only for repairing of the vehicle. The issue is answered accordingly

            As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

6)         The complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay ₹ 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for personal accident cover for owner driver and ₹ 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only for repairing of the vehicle to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only compensation  for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainant. Failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

            Order pronounced in the open court on 30^th day of July 2024.

                        Supply free copies to the Parties.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                              ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.

                       (Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                             M e m b e r(w).