BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.528 of 2015

Date of Instt. 15.12.2015

Date of Decision : 20.09.2016

1.Anju Bala Wd/o Surinder Kumar;

2.Nikhal Saini son of late Surinder Kumar;

3.Jisica daughter of late Surinder Kumar;

Complainants Nos.2 & 3 are minor children, they are represented through their mother Anju Bala being natural guardian.

All R/o Village Raipur, PO Behrampur Tehsil & District Gurdaspur.

..........Complainants

Versus

The United India Insurance Company Limited., 19, GT Road, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Harish Mahajan Adv., counsel for the complainants.

Sh.RS Arora Adv., counsel for the opposite party.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) on the averments that Davinder Singh son of Hari Singh R/o Village Chak Hussain, Lamba Pind, Jalandhar was the owner of oil tanker bearing registration No.PB-08-BW-9006 and he got the same insured with the OP for the period from 6.6.2013 to 5.6.2014. Complainant submitted that their predecessor in interest Surinder Kumar was working as driver of the aforesaid tanker. The said tanker met with an accident on 23.5.2014 and Surinder Kumar died in that accident. The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.57 dated 23.5.2014 U/s 304-A/279/437 of IPC was registered at PS Kartarpur. Complainant submitted that the aforesaid insurance policy included accidental death cover of driver for which the insured has duly paid the premium but the OP did not pay the amount of accidental death cover of driver under the aforesaid policy to the complainants who are the only legal heirs of deceased Surinder Kumar. Complainant served legal notice dated 26.8.2014 upon the OP but inspite of that the OP did not pay the amount of insurance cover on account of death of driver in the road accident. Complainant further submitted that Surkinder Kumar was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. On such averments, the complainants have prayed for directing the OP to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2 Lakhs alongwith interest. They have also claimed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleading that complainant could not prove any record whether Surinder Kumar was employed by the insured i.e. owner of the tanker as driver of the aforesaid tanker. Complainant also failed to produce on record any evidence or any affidavit by insured namely Davinder Singh son of Hari Singh who was the owner of the tanker to prove that Surkinder Kumar was employed by him as driver on the aforesaid insured tanker and that Surinder Kumar died while driving that tanker in road side accident on 23.5.2014. OP further submitted that there was no privity of contract/insurance between the deceased and OP. There is no connection established of the deceased with the insurance. The OP further denied that Surinder Kumar deceased was employed as driver on the aforesaid tanker or that the accident took place during the course of his employment. Complainant as well as deceased Surinder Kumar are stranger to the OP. OP submitted that OP was not liable to pay any amount under the policy to the complainants.

3. In support of their complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.C-1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.OA and Ex.OAA and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that Davinder Singh son of Hari Singh R/o Village Chak Hussain, Lamba Pind, Jalandhar was the owner of oil tanker bearing registration No.PB-08-BW-9006 and he got the same insured with the OP vide cover note Ex.C1 for the period from 6.6.2013 to 5.6.2014. Complainant submitted that their predecessor in interest Surinder Kumar was working as driver of the aforesaid tanker. The said tanker met with an accident on 23.5.2014 and Surinder Kumar died in that accident as per death certificate Ex.C5. The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.57 dated 23.5.2014 Ex.C4, U/s 304-A/279/437 of IPC was registered at PS Kartarpur. Complainant submitted that the aforesaid insurance policy included accidental death cover of driver for which the insured has duly paid the premium but the OP did not pay the amount of accidental death cover of driver under the aforesaid policy to the complainants who are the only legal heirs of deceased Surinder Kumar. Complainant served legal notice Ex.C2 dated 26.8.2014 upon the OP but inspite of that the OP did not pay the amount of insurance cover on account of death of driver in the road accident. Complainant further submitted that Surkinder Kumar was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, copy of which is Ex.C3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that complainant could not prove any record whether Surinder Kumar was employed by the insured i.e. owner of the tanker, as driver of the aforesaid tanker. Complainant, however, produced on record affidavit by insured namely Davinder Singh son of Hari Singh who was the owner of the tanker, in additional evidence, to prove that Surkinder Kumar was employed by him as driver on the aforesaid insured tanker and that Surinder Kumar died while driving that tanker in road side accident on 23.5.2014. OP further submitted that there was no privity of contract/insurance between the deceased and OP. The OP submitted that no claim has been lodged either by the insured or by L.Rs of the driver Surinder Kumar to the OP regarding death claim of driver under the policy. As such, OP No.2 could not process and investigate the claim. Therefore, the OP could not decide the claim case of Surinder Kumar driver. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that the present complaint is pre-mature.

8. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OP submitted that neither owner of the vehicle Davinder Singh nor any LR of Surinder Kumar have filed the claim with the OP regarding the death claim of driver Surinder Kumar so, the OP was unable to decide the claim case of complainant. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainants/their counsel to submit the claim case of Surinder Kumar driver under the policy in question with the OP within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the OP is directed to decide the claim case of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the claim. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

20.9.2016 Member President