DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 222 of 30.5.2016

                                      Decided on:    12.7.2019

1.       Sehajvir Singh Sidhu aged about 22 years S/o Late Sh.Ritinder Singh.

2.       Sukhwant Kaur aged about 82 years W/o late Sh.Mohinder Singh

          Both residents of # 72, Rose Avenue, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1.       United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

2.       United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its CMD.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.K.S.Sidhu,Advocate, counsel for the complainants.

                                      Sh.B.S.Sodhi, Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sh.Sehajvir Singh Sidhu and Smt.Sukhwant Kaur  (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainants is that Ritinder Singh, since deceased was father of complainant No.1 and son of complainant No.2. He had purchased Innova car, model 2010, bearing registration No.PB-11-AR-0073. He got it comprehensively insured with OPs vide policy No.TUI-11132832 for the period 29.6.2014 to 28.6.2015, for the sum insured of Rs.5,37,850/- against premium of Rs.24010/-.The insurance covered personal accident risk of the owner cum driver for Rs.2.00.000/-.
3. At the time of insurance the representative of the OPs inspected the vehicle alongwith documents. Complainant No.1 was nominee in the insurance policy.
4. It is further pleaded that the vehicle met with an accident on 27.4.2015, resulting total loss. Sh. Ritinder Singh was driving the vehicle with the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He received grievous injuries. He brought to civil hospital Talwandi Sabo on 27.4.2015, from where he was referred to Batinda but he died on way due to injuries sustained in the accident.
5. It is further case of the complainants that claim was lodged with the OPs. The OPs deputed surveyor to assess the loss. Complainants completed all the formalities as desired by the OPs and the surveyor. OPs also got the matter investigated through the investigator. The complainant approached police of P.S.Talwandi Sabo to lodge the report but it was told that the accident occurred while saving a cow so there is no need to lodge the report. Lateron as per guidance of OPs complainants lodged DDR on 3.2.2016 and submitted the same in March/2016. The complainants visited the OPs many times and requested for the payment of genuine claim but to no response.
6. It is further pleaded that after receiving ‘No claim letter’, complainants went to the office of OP No.2 and explained that they had submitted DDR in the first week of March,2016 and requested to reconsider the claim but to no response.
7. As per complainants by not making the payment of genuine claim, it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainants have also suffered harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint for claiming Rs.2lakh with interest @18% per annum Rs.25,000/- compensation for harassment and  Rs.5500/- costs of the litigation.
8. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In reply the OPs controverted all the material averments. It is also revealed that the complainants failed to attach any copy of FIR and Postmortem report with the complaint. The lodging of DDR after 10 months of alleged incident shows that the same is after thought and only for filing the present complaint. As per policy terms and conditions, complainants have failed to raise the claim within limitation. Moreover, no such claim has been registered with the United India  Insurance Co. Ltd.. No personal insurance claim is pending or registered with the United India  Insurance Co. Ltd..In the end the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In support of their complaint, the complainants tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of Sehajvir Singh,  copy of RC, Ex.C1, copy of policy, Ex.C2, copy of driving licence, Ex.C3, copy of bed head ticket,Ex.C4,copy of DDR,Ex.C5, copy of newspaper cutting, Ex.C6, copy of survey report, Ex.C7.
10. The OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi, Ex.OPA, copy of letter dated 17.3.2016, Ex.OP1.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for parties and gone through the record of the case carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as set up in their respective pleadings. We have gone through their rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the complainant has also relied upon United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Krishana and others 2012 ACJ 2599, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Ganga Kulera, II(2012) CPJ 236,  Sunita and others Vs. Darshan Singh and others 2014 ACJ 1479 and Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mariambai A. Adamji (since deceased) through LRs and another, 2003 ACJ 1353.
13. The admitted facts are that the vehicle No.PB-11-AR-0073 was owned by Ritinder Singh and it was got insured from OPs. Certificate of registration, Ex.C1 and copy of policy, Ex.C2 prove this fact. The policy, Ex.C2 also proves that there was personal accident cover of Rs.2lakh for owner driver. As per complainants Ritinder Singh owner driver died in accident on 27.4.2015 and after his death the complainants submitted claim with the OPs which has been repudiated vide letter dated 17.3.2016, Ex.OP1. A perusal of this letter reveals that the FIR, Postmortem report are also required to ascertain the cause of death and the complainants have not submitted the same. The OPs have repudiated the claim as no claim. From this letter it also emerges that the OPs have repudiated the claim for the reason that no FIR/PMR is submitted .The purpose of FIR/PMR is only to prove death by accident.
14. The OPs have not produced on record any terms and conditions to prove that in such case the submission of FIR/PMR are mandatory. Moreover when the death by road accident can be proved by other evidence, the non submission of FIR/PMR will be of no consequence. From the pleadings of the parties, it is proved that the vehicle was also damaged in the accident. OPs appointed surveyor. Report of the surveyor is Ex.C7.
15. It is remarked in the report that the insured Ritinder Singh died and servant escaped in the accident. There was no T.P.loss reported to undersigned. Therefore, the report of the surveyor appointed by the OPs proves the factum of accident and the death of Ritinder Singh in this accident.
16. In these circumstances, the claim was not to be repudiated only for want of FIR/PMR.
17. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishana Devi and others(supra), it was concluded that when the witness have proved accident and the doctor has proved injuries and death on workman as a result of accident, the claim was not to be denied for want of PMR and FIR.
18. Similarly in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ganga Kulera,(supra)  Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission has also observed that non furnishing of post-mortem report would not mean that no accident had taken place.
19. Therefore from the legal preposition also the death of Ritinder Singh in accident is proved. The claim was not to be repudiated only for want of FIR/PMR. As such the repudiation of the claim is not justified.
20. From the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/-as costs of the litigation. The OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2lakh to the complainant. Since the repudiation is not justified as such the OPs are also liable to pay compensation by way of interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 17.3.2016 till payment.
21. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 12.7.2019      

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President