DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.
Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2018
Date of institution: 08.05.2018
Date of decision : 11.2.2019
Charanjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, resident of village Mahaddian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
…..Complainant
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered office, 24 whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Chairman/M.D.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd. having its Branch Office at Micro office, Kang Market, Near HDFC Bank, Main Road Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Sh. Kuljit Singh, President
Sh. Inder Jit, Member
Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member
Present : Sh. G.S.Bimbra, Adv.Cl. for complainant.
Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.
ORDER
Inderjit, Member
Complainant Charanjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, resident of village Mahaddian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) under Section 11, 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The husband of the complainant namely; Darshan Singh, was owner of vehicle T.V.S. Jupiter bearing Registration No.PB-23U-8495, Chassis No.22331 and Engine No.2226489. The said vehicle had comprehensive insurance policy (Package Policy), office code 111083 cover note No.1110833116N100109085, from OPs which was valid w.e.f. 28.04.2016 to 27.04.2017. The amount of insurance premium of Rs.1569/- was also paid at the time of taking the said policy. On 19.09.2016, the husband of the complainant met with an accident when he was going towards Floor Mill Bassi Pathana on the said vehicle. The husband of the complainant fell down on the road due to imbalance of the vehicle and received grievous injuries. The husband of the complainant was hospitalized but due to grievous injuries, he died on 22.09.2016. A DDR No.35 dated 22.09.2016 was also got registered at P.S.Bassi Pathana. The complainant moved an application alongwith all documents before the OPs and also requested the OPs to release the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the OPs have been prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs, which was replied by them and thereafter they demanded driving license of the deceased. It is further stated by the complainant that the driving license was in possession of the deceased and the complainant does not know about the same. The complainant further stated that the OPs issued the insurance policy after verifying all the relevant documents and hence they cannot deny the lawful claim of the complainant at this stage. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- i.e amount of claim along with interest and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint, OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous, vague, vexatious in nature; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that the complainant had previously filed a consumer complaint in this Forum, which was disposed off on 22.12.2016 and after receiving the copy of order of said date, OP No.2 sent a letter to the complainant on 30.12.2016 and requested her to supply the RC, DL, Estimate of vehicle damaged, Claim form, copy of police report, post mortem report and death certificate of the deceased but the complainant has not supplied the documents. Reminders dated 06.01.2017 & 30.01.2017 were also issued to the complainant for supply of requisite documents but the same were not supplied by the complainant. Rather the complainant filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Fatehgarh Sahib and the same was disposed off by the Lok Adalat on dated 08.03.2018 and thereafter the present complaint was filed by the complainant. The complainant has not supplied the Driving License of the deceased till date. The complainant is not entitled for any amount as alleged by her in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex. C-1 to C-15 and her affidavit Ex. C-16. She further tendered affidavit of Inderjit Singh as Ex. C-17 and copies of documents Ex. C-18 and C-19 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajdeep Kaur Ex. OP-1 along with documents Ex. OP2-OP-7 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the husband of the complainant Darshan Singh had purchased a TVS Jupiter bearing Regd. No.PB-23U-8495 during 3/2016 which was got insured compressively with the OPs w.e.f 28.4.2016 to 27.4.2017. On dated 19.9.2016, the husband of the complainant met with an accident due to imbalance of the said scooter and got injured. He was hospitalized but could not survive & passed away on 22.9.2016. The complainant lodged a claim with the OPs for payment of claim under the Insurance Policy which was repudiated by the OPs for non submission of driving license of the deceased Darshan Singh. Ld. Counsel further argued that the complainant informed the OPs that the said Driving License might have been with the deceased. Ld. Counsel further argued that the OPs might have checked up the Driving License of the deceased at the time of issuance of Policy as is required under the rules. Ld. counsel for the complainant cited a case titled as “ New India Assurance Co. Vs. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Lally and others” decided by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 20.3.2013. The relevant Para of this order is reproduced here under :-
“At the same we can not ignore the facts that as per section III of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and GR-36 of the India Motor tariff before issuance of personal accident cover, it was mandatory on the part of insurer to verify whether the insured was having a valid and effective driving license. Before issuance of Personal Accident Cover, the agent of the opposite party did not verify the validity of the driving license of the insured. Once the opposite party issued to policy , in question, may be due to fault of its agent, now it can not be allowed to wriggle out of its liability….”
Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the OPs be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant alongwith interest and adequate compensation/litigation charges.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that the complaint of the complainant is false and based upon wrong facts. However, he argued that the Driving License of deceased is very much necessary for processing the claim case. If the complainant produces the Driving License of the deceased, the claim of the complainant can be processed as per terms and conditions of the Policy.
6 We have gone through the documents placed on record, evidence, written arguments and oral submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. From the documents placed on record , it is evident that the vehicle had insurance w.e.f 28.4.2016 to 27.4.2017. Before issuing insurance policy, the validity of the driving license of the owner is required to be checked up by the insurer. In the present case too, the driving license of the owner might have been checked up by the insurer. Once the policy is issued (may be without verifying the validity of driving license), the insurer can not escape its liability of payment of claim, compensation whatsoever as is evident from the judgement dated 20.3.2013 of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in the case of New India Assurance Co. Vs. Smt Gurjit Kaur Lally w/o Late S. Avtar Singh Lally & others. Hence we accept this complaint against the OPs. Ops are therefore directed to process the case of complainant afresh in view of the aforesaid judgement dated 20.3.2013 of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in the case of ‘New India Assurance Co. Vs. Smt Gurjit Kaur Lally w/o Late S. Avtar Singh Lally & others’ and pay whatever is admissible under the terms of thle policy alongwith interest @ 8% P.A from the date claim became due till its actual payment and also compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and harassment together with litigation charges.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.01.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced Dated: 11/2/2019
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Inder Jit)
Member
(Yuvinder Singh Matta)
Member
