BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:192 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 06.07.2015.
Date of Decision: 3.10.2017
Asha widow of Mahabir Singh, resident of Rohtak road, behind Oriental Bank of Commerce, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Abhishek Panwar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a Tata Truck bearing registration no. HR-19E/1730, Chasis No.373344CRZ111119, Engine No.6977C55CRZ115016, make Tata Motors, Mfg. Year 2008 for public carrier use and the above said vehicle was also got insured with OP vide cover note No. 237229 dated 18.3.2014. It is alleged that the declared value of vehicle was Rs.5,50,000/- and husband of complainant paid the premium of Rs.21,755/- on the abovesaid amount and the insurance was valid from 24.3.2014 to 23.3.2015. It is alleged that on ill fated day i.e. 22.6.2014, when the said truck being driven by the husband of complainant then in the meantime a truck being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently came from front and directly hit into the truck of husband of complainant and the complainant died on the spot. It is alleged that a report was also made to the police and a FIR No.140 dated 22.6.2014 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC was got registered by the police station Bound Kalan. It is alleged that the complainant got repaired the said vehicle after incurring huge expenses amounting to Rs.3,15,100/- and after that complainant approached and informed to the Ops about the accident a claim was provided by OP and as per respondent’s requirements. The complainant had submitted all the required papers to the OP being nominee and widow of the insured Mahabir Singh. It is alleged that the complainant lodged his claim to respondent to settle the same as per terms and conditions of the policy but the OP did not settle the claim and in return a letter dated 20.3.2015 was sent by OP. It is alleged that the complainant visited many a times to OP’s office and made various telephonic reminders but the OP failed to settle the above said claim of complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 8.6.2015. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, she had to suffer mental agony, humiliation and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant is not entitled to seek the compensation as claimed. It is alleged that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is alleged that the complainant did not cooperate the OP company by clarifying the matter for settlement of the claim intentionally and deliberately and ultimately the complainant was informed that the OP company has made the claim as No Claim since the OP company is not liable to pay the claim vide letter dated 20.3.2015. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-16 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-15 alongwith affidavit Mark A and report Mark B.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that on 22.6.2014 the vehicle in question registered in the name of the husband of the complainant was damaged in road accident. An FIR No.140 dated 22.6.2014 was registered with the concerned police station. A sum of Rs.3,15,000/- was spent by the complainant on the repair of the truck in question. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted the required papers to the OP for settlement of the claim. The OP vide letter dated 20.3.2015 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false ground. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments :
1. Karam Singh Vs. Balwinder Kaur (2002)1 ACC 697 : (2002) ACJ 697 : (2001) 3 RCR (Civil)487 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rani & others PLR (2001-1)537 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that on getting the intimation regarding the accident, the surveyor and loss assessor was deputed by the OP. The surveyor submitted his report dated 24.7.2014. The final survey was also conducted by other surveyor who submitted his report dated 28.7.2014 assessing the loss of Rs.1,63,421/-. The complainant provided the driving license of Mahabir, which was issued from the licensing authority Delhi. He submitted that Suraj Kamboj, Advocate of Hisar was deputed to verify the driving license of Mahabir. He submitted his report dated 1.12.2014. According to said report the said license was not available in the office of Licensing Authority, Mall Road, Delhi. The complainant was asked to submit the detailed particulars of the said driving license but complainant failed to submit any particular regarding said license in question, Therefore, OP vide letter dated 20.3.2015 intimated the complainant that the OP is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.
8. In the light of pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have perused the record carefully. The material facts of the case are not dispute. The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OP on the ground that driving license of the driver, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident was not found to be genuine. The counsel for the OP in support of his contention has relied upon the report Annexure-R5 made by the licensing authority, Mall Road, Delhi on the letter of Suraj Kamboj Advocate for the verification of DL. The OP has also produced Suraj Kamboj Advocate, who has produced his affidavit Mark-A and his report Mark-B. The counsel for the OP contended that in view of the affidavit and report of the investigator, the genuineness of the DL of Mahabir is not proved and the said DL originally stated to be issued from the licensing authority, Mall Road, Delhi, had not been issued as stated by the investigator in his affidavit and report. The counsel for the OP contended that the DL was not genuine and the OP is not liable to pay any claim. Counsel for the complainant was asked to submit the affidavit of the complainant to counter the contention of the OP and to give detail of the driving license issuing office of the licensing authority, if it is not issued from the licensing authority, Mall Delhi but no affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant. In the view of said discussion, we are inclined to accept the contention of the OP in the absence of cogent evidence contrary to it. Resultantly the complaint of the complainant cannot succeed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 3.10.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
