BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.692-13

Date of Institution:11-10-2013

Date of Decision:15-04-2015  

1. Hardeep Kaur widow of S.Varinderjit Singh.
2. Kirandeep Kaur daughter of S.Varinderjit Singh
3. Jagjot Singh son of S.Varinderjit Singh, all legal heirs of deceased S.Varinderjit Singh, resident of A-126, Partap Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainants.

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer service through its Branch Office at 35, 3^rd Floor, Dharam Singh Market, Amritsar through its  Branch Manager.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Ms.Sneh Lata, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainants under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Varinderjit Singh who unfortunately expired on 7.5.2010 with accidental injuries. The deceased had taken Individual Personal Accidental Policy No.200300/42/09/01/ 0000271 from the Opposite Party by paying premium of Rs. 248/- and the sum assured of Rs.2 lacs. Complainants allege that Varinderjit Singh unfortunately met with an accident while going on the vehicle bearing No.PB-02-AZ-2816 with bus  on 2.5.2010 and received multiple injuries and finally succumbed to the accidental injuries on 7.5.2010 and the DDR has been lodged with Police Post Verka Milk Plant. The matter was later compromised regarding the criminal proceedings. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party by the complainant No.1. As required by the Opposite Party, the complainant provided the copy of Registration Certificate, copy of DDR, her voter card and duly sworn affidavit that the post mortem was not conducted and the vehicle in which the deceased Varinderjit Singh was travelling got badly crushed and his belongings could not be traced including his driving licence.  But the Opposite Party without considering the version of the complainant No.1, repudiated the genuine claim of the complainants vide their letter  dated 5.10.2010 on the ground that claimant did not reply properly about the legal requirement till date inspite of various reminders and the claim filed as ‘no claim’.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lacs as sum assured alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 5.10.2010 i.e. date of repudiation  of claim till realization. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as soon as the complainant lodged claim regarding the death of insured, the investigator was appointed by Opposite Party and as per the report of the investigator Mr.S.S.Bawa, it was noticed that in this case,  no FIR as required under section 154 Cr.P.C. regarding he accident caused, in which deceased Varinderjit Singh died, was lodged with the police and no legal requirement under section 174 Cr.P.C. has been completed by the police and inquest report, which was mandatory in accident cases. So much so, no permission for waiving the post mortem of deceased was taken from Ilaqa Magistrate either by the complainants or by the police and the DDR only was lodged with respect of the accident and no follow up legal action was taken by the police and even an agreement was reached in between the bus driver which caused the accident and the complainants, for which they were not competent to enter into such agreement/ compromise, without informing the Opposite Party regarding the accident as per terms and conditions of the policy and no copy of agreement was supplied. No driving licence of deceased Varinderjit Singh was supplied who was driving the Bolero car at the time of accident and accordingly letter dated 13.8.2010 was written to the complainant Hardeep Kaur to supply the information and documents and clarify all these facts so that the Opposite Party can proceed further in the matter. Not only this, again letters dated 5.10.2010 and 18.10.2010 were issued to the complainants, but despite this, the complainants failed to supply any information and documents, etc to the Opposite Party nor even visited the office of Opposite Party with said clarifications and finding no other way, the claim of the complainant has been rightly filed as ‘non claim’ and letter in this regard was rightly issued to the complainants. Moreover, on verification, it was found that the driving licence of deceased Variderjit Singh, was not valid at the time of accident. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of Hardeep Kaur, complainant No.1 as Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that Sh.Varinderjit Singh, predecessor in interest of the complainants had taken  Individual Personal Accidental Policy No.200300/42/09/01/ 0000271 from the Opposite Party for a sum assured of Rs.2 lacs. Sh.Varinderjit Singh deceased life assured  (here-in-after called as ‘DLA’)  met with an accident while going on  vehicle bearing No.PB-02-AZ-2816 with bus  on 2.5.2010, as result of which, he suffered multiple injuries and  ultimately  succumbed to the accidental injuries on 7.5.2010.  DDR in this respect was recorded at Police Post Verka Milk Plant, copy of which is Ex.C4. The complainants being legal heirs of DLA Varinderjit Singh lodged the claim with Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party  repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 5.10.2010 Ex.OP5 on the ground that the complainants did not proper reply about the legal requirement inspite of various requests, so the claim filed as ‘no claim’. Ld.counsel for the complainants submitted that regarding driving licence of DLA Varinderjit Singh insured, the complainants have produced Sh.Gurnam Singh, Clerk of the office of DTO, Amritsar as witness to prove that the driving licence bearing No.18379 of DLA Varinderjit Singh was valid upto 10.2.2017. No FIR was recorded with regard to the accident in question as parties have effected compromise and they did not lodge FIR against any person. Only intimation as given to the police vide DDR Ex.C4. As such, no post mortem of the deceased was got conducted. However, the complainants have produced on record the certificate to this effect from the hospital where DLA Varinderjit Singh was admitted and expired on 7.5.2010 as a result of road side accident. Ld.counsel for the complainants has submitted that the  Opposite Party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainants which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainants.         
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of the intimation from the complainants regarding death of DLA Varinderjit Singh, the Opposite Party appointed investigator  Mr.S.S.Bawa. As per the report  of the investigator , it was noticed that in the instant case,  no FIR as required under section 154 Cr.P.C. was recoded by the police. No proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. have been completed by the police i.e. inquest report,  etc. nor any permission for waiving the post mortem of deceased was taken from competent authority. Only DDR was lodged with respect of the accident. The agreement was arrived at without informing the Opposite Party. No driving licence of deceased DLA Varinderjit Singh was supplied. Opposite Party examined Sh.Pawan Kumar, Steno of DTO, Amritsar  who deposed that the licence of DLA Varinderjit Singh was valid upto 10.2.2007 only whereas the accident took place in the year 2010. As such, DLA Varinderjit Singh was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion  that DLA Varinderjit Singh was insured with the Opposite Party vide Individual Personal Accidental Policy No.200300/42/09/01/ 0000271 for a sum assured  Rs.2 lacs. Said Sh.Varinderjit Singh met with an accident on 2.5.2010, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries and  ultimately  succumbed to the accidental injuries on 7.5.2010 in Apex Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar. The complainants have produced on record certificate from Apex Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar in this regard dated 7.5.2010 Ex.C5 in which the hospital authorities have certified that DLA Varinderjit Singh was admitted on 2.5.2010 as a result of road side  accident sustaining head injury and abdominal injury. He was operated on 3.5.2010, but the patient expired on 7.5.2010 at 9 AM. The complainant has also produced on record, copy of DDR recorded at Police Post, Verka Milk Plant. However, the matter was compromised regarding the criminal proceedings as there was no fault on the part of either of the party. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.10.2010 Ex.OP4 on the ground that the complainant did not reply properly about the legal requirements. So, the claim of the complainant is treated as ‘no claim’. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the complainants supplied driving licence of DLA Varinderjit Singh which was got verified from the Licencing Authority i.e. DTO, Amritsar and the Opposite Party examined Sh.Pawan Kumar, Steno of office of DTO, who deposed that as per record DLA Varinderjit Singh had driving licence bearing No.18379 which was valid upto 10.2.2007. This witness was not cross-examined by the complainants, whereas the  complainants examined Sh.Gurnam Singh, Clerk of office of Licencing Authority i.e. DTO, Amritsar who brought the computer record of licence No.18379 of DLA Varinderjit Singh and proved on record  that as per computer record, the driving licence of DLA Varinderjit Singh bearing No. 18379 is valid upto 10.2.2017 as per latest and correct record maintained by DTO Office, Amritsar and in this regard, he deposed that  validity of the licence is totally computerized now and authenticity of the licence issued by the DTO Office, Amritsar is only determined from computerized record maintained by DTO Office, Amritsar. This witness was thoroughly cross examined by ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and in the cross examination, this witness has deposed that as per the manual record Ex.R1, licence in question was  valid from 9.2.1993 to 10.2.2007. However, this witness certified that this entry is  a clerical error because as per computer run sheet Ex.C7, this licence is valid upto 10.2.2017 because the licence is made valid upto the age of 50 years of the licence holder. There may be manual mistake, but there shall not be mistake in the computer. He also admitted that department gave report Ex.R2 on the basis of entry in the register and not on the basis of computerized record.  He submitted that the correct entry is in the computer  record and there may be mistake in the manual record and the department given verification report regarding this licence dated 26.4.2011 by going through the computerized record that the licence is valid upto 10.2.2017 and this verification report is Ex.C8. So, from the record of the licencing authority i.e. DTO, Amritsar and deposition of Gurnam Singh, Clerk in the office of DTO, Amritsar who brought the computerized as well as manual record of the licence in question, it stands fully proved on record that licence in question bearing No. 18379 of DLA Varinderjit Singh is valid from 9.2.1993 upto 10.2.2017. So, DLA Varinderjit Singh was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.
9. As regard FIR as well as post mortem report of DLA Varinderjit Singh in order to prove that  DLA Varinderjit Singh expired as a result of road side accident sustaining injuries, the complainants have produced on record Ex.C5 certificate from Apex Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar. Not only this, the Opposite Party has also produced on record same certificate  from Apex Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar which is Ex.OP11. As per this certificate, it stands fully proved on record that DLA Varinderjit Singh met with a road side accident as a result of which, he suffered head injury and abdominal injury on 2.5.2010 and he was admitted in that hospital on 2.5.2010 where he was medically treated, operated upon, but ultimately DLA Varinderjit Singh expired on 7.5.2010 as a result of injuries suffered due to road side accident. It has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case LIC and others Vs. Smt.Nidhi Sahi 2005 (1) CPC page 533 that where the death of insured occurred in scooter accident-Claim challenged mainly on the ground that no FIR was lodged nor any post mortem was performed of deceased body-Fact of death well proved and supported by statement of witness who was pillion rider of the scooter at the time of accident-Order passed by District Forum allowing the complaint held to be based upon good reason-Appeal was dismissed. Similar are the facts of the present case. However, in this case, even the complainants as well as Opposite Party have produced certificate from the hospital authorities to the effect that DLA Varinderjit Singh suffered injuries as a result of  road side accident and he expired as a result of injuries suffered due to road side accident.
10. Consequently, we hold that Opposite Party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding accidental claim under the aforesaid policy.
11. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.2 lacs to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainants to the tune of Rs.2000/-.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15-04-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member