Haryana

StateCommission

A/114/2015

ANGURI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLAKHA

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       114 of 2015

Date of Institution:       04.02.2015

Date of Decision :        30.11.2015

 

Anguri Devi w/o late Shri Ram Kumar, Resident of Village Talakaur, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      The Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division, Mustafabad, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      General Manager/Administrator, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula.

3.      Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

4.      The National Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No.57, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for appellant.

Shri N.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated November 26^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by her was dismissed.

2.      Ram Kumar (since deceased)-husband of Anguri Devi-complainant/appellant, was employed as Lineman with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘UHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The UHBVNL had purchased a Group Insurance Policy for its employees from National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-respondent/opposite party No.4, w.e.f. July 17^th, 2010 to July 16^th, 2011, vide which each employee was insured for Rs.5.00 lacs.

3.      On November 10^th, 2010, Ram Kumar-insured was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02Q-4149, Hero Honda, in the area of Village Malikpur, District Yamuna Nagar. Suddenly, a blue bull (Neel Gai) appeared on the road, the motorcycle after striking against the said blue bull, struck against a tree on the road side. The motorcyclist suffered grievous injuries including the head injuries. He was admitted in Gaba Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries suffered by him, on December 13^th, 2010.

4.      The complainant filed claim with the opposite parties but they did not pay the insured amount to her. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

5.      The opposite parties contested complaint. In their joint reply, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 took preliminary objections viz maintainability of the complaint, the complainant not being consumer etcetera. It was stated that complainant’s husband died in a road side accident whereas the insurance policy was obtained by the UHBVNL for its employees while working with the electricity equipments of the Nigam. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was not covered under the policy.  On the same lines, the opposite party No.4/the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the complaint in its separate reply.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

7.      After perusing the policy, this Commission is of the view that the Insurance Company/respondent No.4, is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant. The policy does not contain any such clause/term that it covered the insured while working on duty with electricity equipments. The insurance being admitted and there being no bar or restriction for coverage of employees only while on duty, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount. Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties do not deny this fact. That being so, all the employees of the UHBVNL, whether on duty or off duty, were covered under the policy.   The District Forum fell in error while dismissing the complaint and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the insured amount, that is, Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant/appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

 

Announced 30.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL