Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 158.
Instituted on : 10.03.2017.
Decided on : 18.02.2019.
Rajni, age 33 years, wife of Late Sh. Mahavir Kagara, Resident of Village Maina, Tehsil and District Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd., Ajmera Complex in front of Shri Ram Public School, 478-A, Kateva Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thari, Jaipur-302019 through its Incharge.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., A-501, Ganesh Plaza, Navrangapura, Ahmedabad – 380009 through its Divisional Manager/Incharge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.K. Bidla, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the OP No. 1 had appointed complainant’s husband as distributor and received an amount of Rs.3500/- from him on account of Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd. Business Kit and accordingly Tailor made Personal Accident Policy No.060 600/42/11/05/00002261 was issued by OP No. 2. TGPL ID No. is 2358453 as mentioned in receipt dated 20.07.2011 and said Tailor made Personal Accident Policy and total sum insured is Rs.1,25,000/-. It is alleged that husband of the complainant had died on 03.02.2014 due to an accident and FIR No. 56 dated 03.02.2014, under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC PS Sampla was lodged. It is further alleged that all documents have already been submitted by the complainant in the office of OPs on 26.05.2014, but till today the amount of claim has not been paid by the OPs. A legal notice dated 10.11.2016 was also sent to the Ops but without any fruitful result. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount Rs.1,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that it is correct that the content regarding Tulip Global Pvt. Ltd. having opted for policy No.060600/42/11/05/00002261 including Mahabir Singh being the one of the member being insured for the basic sum assured of Rs.1,25,000/- subject to the terms and conditions. That at the time of getting the vehicle insured by OP handed over the policy with terms and conditions. It is further submitted that it is wrong and denied that the complainant has deposited all the documents required for settlement of the claim on merits. It is also submitted that OP served letter dated 15.03.2016 requesting to submit the documents required for settlement of the claim on merits, and later on also served NO Claim letter dated 03.01.2017 as complainant failed to submit the documents, then OP under compelling the circumstances close the file as No Claim as the complainant failed to submit the documents requested in letter dated 15.03.2016. It is further submitted that the OP being the consumer centric company is ready to open the file again and is ready to settle the claim on merits and lastly prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 2.
3. Whereas, notice issued to OP No. 1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, OP no. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.09.2017 of this Forum.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.07.2018. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and his evidence was closed by court order vide order dated 22.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case insurance and death of husband of complainant in an accident is not disputed. After the death of her husband, complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties but the same has been repudiated by the opposite party No.2 on the ground that the opposite party served letter dated 15.03.2016 requesting the complainant to submit the documents required for settlement of the claim on merits but the complainant failed to submit the documents, as such his claim was filed as ‘No Claim’. In this regard it is observed that except the affidavit Ex.RW1/A, opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document/letter to prove that some documents were required from the complainant and the complainant has failed to submit the same. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party No.2 is baseless and the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief under the policy. As per policy Ex.C5, the sum insured under accidental death is Rs.100000/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
18.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
