DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 315 of 14.8.2017

                                      Decided on:   19.1.2021

1. Manjeet Rani aged about 41 years w/o Late Sh.Narinder Sharma
2. Sandeep Kaur Sharma, aged about 22 years,
3. Hushandeep Sharma, aged about 18 years, daughters of Late Narinder Sharma
4. Ravinderpal Sharma, aged about 14 years(Minor) son of Late Narinder Sharma, through his mother and next friend Manjeet Rani.

All residents of village Lalouchhi, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Patiala Road, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.K.S.Pruthi, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Kulwant Singh, counsel for OP.                              

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Manjeet Rani and others  (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that Narinder Sharma son of Sukhdev Ram, was the  owner of motorcycle bearing No.PB-11-BV-9693 having engine No.PFG-92170 and chassis No.FPG-44657.The owner as well as the driver of the motor cycle were insured with the OP vide policy No.111704315P112287613.
3. It is averred that Narinder Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident on 6.11.2016 and the postmortem was conducted on the same date in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.FIR was registered with the police station Passiana vide No.125 dated 6.11.2016.Information with regard to the death of Narinder Sharma was also given to the OP alongwith relevant documents. It was also informed to the OP that driving licence of Narinder Sharma has been lost at the time of accident. The report regarding the loss of driving licence alongwith other documents was lodged with the police on 22.11.2016.
4. It is averred that despite number of representations made to the OP for issuance of accident claim, the claim was rejected by the OP on 20.3.2017 without any cogent reason, which is illegal, null and void and against the principle of natural justice. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and torture to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to issue the accident claim under the aforesaid policy to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-; to pay Rs.20,000/-towards compensation for causing mental agony and torture and also to pay Rs.10,000/-as costs of the complaint.\
5. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and that the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint.
6. On merits, issuance of policy is admitted and it is stated that it be read as part of reply. It is further stated that no accident claim can be issued to a person who is not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. The claim has been rightly repudiated after giving full opportunity to the complainants to produce the driving licence of Narinder Sharma but they failed to do so and in the absence of driving licence it cannot be ascertained that whether Narinder Sharma was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments made in the complaint the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 .
8. The ld. counsel for the OP tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Harpreet Singh Nagra, branch Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
9. We  have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that Narinder Sharma s/o Sukhdev Ram was the owner of motorcycle in question. It was insured with the OP. The ld. counsel further argued that Narinder Sharma died in motor cycle accident on 6.11.2016 and his postmortem was conducted.FIR was also registered. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant informed the OP with regard to the death of Narinder Sharma .It was also informed that licence of Narinder Sharma was lost and DDR was lodged  in this regard but till date no payment was made.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP argued that it is admitted that the complainant was insured but it is stated that the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and DDR has been lodged after thought by concocted false story. It is further argued that no number of the driving licence was mentioned in the DDR and the deceased was not having any licence so the complainants are not entitled to any claim.
12. To prove this complaint, Manjeet Rani tendered her affidavit, Ex.CA and she has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the Aadhar card of the complainant Manjeet Rani, Ex.C2 is the letter of NO claim written by the OP to  the complainant,Ex.C3 is the letter written by OP to the complainant. It is written in the letter that the complainant has failed to submit driving licence of the insured. Therefore, the claim file was closed.Ex.C4 is the insurance policy, Ex.C5 is the letter written by Manjeet Rani to the OP for giving her the insured money.Ex.C6 is the information regarding death of Narinder Sharma,Ex.C7 copy of FIR, Ex.C8 is the postmortem report,Ex.C9 is DDR, Ex.C10 is death certificate.
13. On the other hand Sh.Harpreet Singh Nagra has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per his written reply. In para No.4 of the affidavit, it is deposed that complainant has failed to produce effective and valid driving licence of the deceased.Ex.OP1 is package policy,Ex.OP2 is no claim letter, Ex.OP3 is investigation report.
14. Admittedly the husband of the complainant was owner of the motor cycle bearing No.PB-11-BV-9693 in question and was insured with the OP and Sh.Narinder Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident on 6.11.2016.Claim was lodged with the OP but the claim was declined vide letter, Ex.OP2. It is mentioned that the complainant has failed to provide the driving licence of the insured, therefore, the claim was closed. The investigation report is also on the file and the same is Ex.OP3 and it is mentioned in the investigation report that the complainant could not submit the driving licence or the driving licnece number of the insured. In the absence of the same it would not be possible to establish whether the insured was having effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident.
15. Admittedly DDR,Ex.C9 was lodged with the police on 22.11.2016 after 16 days of accident regarding loss of driving licnece of Sh.Narinder Sharma but the number of the driving licence or copy of the driving licence is not attached. The complainant could have easily examine some official of transport authority to establish that driving licence of Narinder Sharma was prepared.
16. As per the insurance policy on the file a person must hold effective driving licence at the time of accident. So it is clear that the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and from the DDR it is not proved whether he was having any driving licence at the time of accident.So the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.          

ANNOUNCED

DATED:19.1.2021       

                                    Y.S.Matta                           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President