DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 114
Instituted on: 24.03.2017 Decided on: 06.07.2017
Prem Lata Wd/o Rajeev Kumar, R/O House No.324, Ward No.14, Sunam, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. City Road, NRG Complex, 1st Floor, Sunam, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.
For OP : Shri Sat Paul Sharma, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Prem Lata, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that husband of the complainant, Shri Rajeev Kumar purchased an insurance policy bearing number 1117023115P105725423 from the OP by getting insured her car bearing registration number PB-11-BB-3334 for the period from 14.8.2015 to 13.8.2016 by paying the requisite premium. Further case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant namely, Rajeev Kumar died in an accident on 17.01.2016 as Shri Rajeev Kumar (referred to as DLA in short) was travelling in the car, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP failed to pay the claim of Rs.2,60,000/- despite serving of legal notice on the ground that the DLA was not having a valid driving license at the time of driving of the vehicle. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the purported complaint is the outside the scope and ambit of the consumer, that the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OP being legal heir of deceased Rajeev Kumar. It is admitted that the DLA had purchased the private car policy and the IDV was Rs.2,60,000/- and the DLA died in a road side accident. The Op deputed the surveyor to verify the mater and found that the DLA was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and further found that DL number 154 dated 22.7.1992 was valid only for the scooter upto 8.7.2009 prior to date of accident as such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact that the DLA had got insured his car in question from the Op for the period from 14.8.2015 to 13.8.2016, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-5 (Ex.OP-1). It is also not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 17.1.2016, in which the DLA Rajeev Kumar died and at that time the car in question was being driven by Shri Rajat Kansal, nephew of the DLA, as is evident from the copy of FIR number 8 dated 18.1.2016. But, the fact remains that the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-which is the IDV of the car in question and the complainant has not claimed the claim on account of death of the DLA under the clause personal accident. There is not even a single averment in the complaint that the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on account of loss of the vehicle, whereas the complainant is claiming the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- on account of death of the DLA Rajeev Kumar. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant himself is not clear that for what purpose he has filed the complaint and how has been claiming the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from the Op, more so when the complainant has not even uttered a single word about the loss of the car in question. On the other hand, the OP has repudiated the claim on the ground that the DLA was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, whereas the vehicle was being driven by Shri Rajat Kansal, nephew of the deceased DLA. In the circumstances of the case, we may mention that the complainant has failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record and further filed a vague, vexatious complaint which has no meaning at all.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
July 6, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
