Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/148

Ravinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Insurance & Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Chetan Kumar Sharma, Adv

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 148 of 01.12.2014

                               Date of decision                 : 08.06.2015

 

Ravinder Kaur, aged about 25 years, widow of Late Sh. Gurjit Singh, son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Bhallian, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib District Rupnagar.

                                                                                      ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. United Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, Rupnagar.

2. United Insurance Company having its H.O. at 24, Whites Road,

    Chennai-600014 through its Chairman.

                                                                                 ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Rajesh Sharma Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Ravinder Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay the claim amount of Rs.1 Lac alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident till its realization,

ii)      To pay special costs of Rs.50,000/-,

iii)     To pay the litigation expenses.

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that Gurjit Singh, her deceased husband, was the owner of LML Scooter No.PB-12R-1441, for which, on 10.07.2013, he had obtained an insurance policy, which was valid upto 09.07.2014. The said policy was a comprehensive policy including the death of insured as the O.Ps. had also received Rs.50/- as premium for personal accident policy. On 25.11.2013, her husband was returning from Nalagarh to Rupnagar on his above said scooter No.PB-12R-1441 and at about 6.30 P.M. when he reached near Rupnagar Jail his scooter slipped and became out of control & turned turtle, due to which he  received multiple injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he was shifted to a local hospital, namely, Parmar Hospital,  from where he was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh and died there on 27.11.2013. Thereafter,  she had approached to the local branch office of the O.Ps. and lodged claim for payment of Rs.1 Lac, under personal accident policy. The O.Ps. appointed surveyor i.e. Sharma Associates from Ambala Cantt, to whom all the requisite documents were supplied by her. The investigator was appointed on 11.12.2013, but he did not supply his report within time. The O.Ps. had also appointed Nasib Chand, as investigator, who had given his report in favour of the complainant for making payment of the claim amount to her, which is in the custody of O.Ps. Inspite of all this, the O.Ps.  had repudiated the claim on the ground that the accident does not fall under the scope of motor policy, without going through the policy, which covers all the risks. Moreover, the O.Ps. had delayed the matter to settle the claim unnecessarily, as all the requisite documents were supplied by her without any delay. Hence, this complaint.

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed joint written statement in the shape of affidavit of Ms. Hemali Batra, Sr. Divisional Manager, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering insurance company, because it has repudiated the claim, after applying the impartial mind; that the policy covering scooter No.PB-12R-1441 was issued by the branch office, Rupnagar for the period from 10.07.2013 to 09.07.2014, but no own damage claim was lodged before the Branch office, Rupnagar; that no cause of action has arisen against the  O.Ps. and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint, as so many complicated facts & questions are involved in the present case, which cannot be decided in summary nature, without recording evidence & cross examination of the witnesses, for which only the civil court has the jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that no accident had taken place with the scooter bearing No.PB-12-R-1441 on 25.11.2013. The answering O.Ps., after receipt of intimation, had deputed an independent investigator, duly licensed by IRDA to give the report regarding the truth, who after thorough investigation submitted his independent report. The DDR No. 39 dated 25.11.2013 lodged at Police Post, PGI and the Indoor File No.4867534 confirmed that the deceased was not driving the insured scooter at the time of alleged accident; rather he was riding on a motorcycle and met with accident with unknown vehicle. It is reiterated that the answering insurance company, after applying its impartial mind, has repudiated the claim. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, Ex. C1, affidavit of Sh. Satnam Singh, Ex.C2, photocopies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Ms. Hemali Batra, Sr. Divisional Manager, Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Sh. Davinder Sharma, investigator, Ex.OP-2, and photocopies of documents  Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                After going through the documents placed on record, by the parties, which are contrary to each other, the following are the questions, which are culled out from the record, to decide as to whether the complicated & disputed questions are involved in this case:-

i)       Whether Late Gurjit Singh was riding/driving the scooter or motorcycle at the time of accident?

ii)      Whether Sh. Satnam Singh accompanied late Gurjit Singh to the police post at PGI, Chandigarh at the time of lodding of DDR?

iii)     Whether Sh. Satnam Singh had made any statement before the official/officer of the Police Post at PGI, Chandigarh?

 

          As per the complainant, at the time of accident, Gurjit Singh, her deceased husband, was driving the scooter. In support of her version, she has placed reliance on copy of Post Mortem examination report dated 28.11.2013, Ex. C5, and copy of DDR dated 27.11.2013 lodged at the Police Station, City Ropar, Ex.C6. On the contrary, the stand of the O.Ps. is that at the time of accident, late Gurjit Singh was riding on a motorcycle. To prove this fact, they have placed reliance on the true copy of DDR No.39 dated 25.11.2013, Ex. OP-5, wherein the official/officer concerned of the said Police Post had recorded that Sh. Satnam Singh had stated that at the time of accident, said Gurjit Singh was riding on the motorcycle and had met with accident near his village. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that Sh. Satnam Singh had never made any statement before the Police authority at PGI, Chandigarh on 25.11.2013. To this effect, she has furnished the duly sworn & attested affidavit of said Sh. Satnam Singh, Ex. C1. He submitted that as Sh. Satnam Singh had not made any statement before the Police in the Police Post, PGI, then this DDR written by the officer/official of the said Police Post has no value in the eyes of law, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said DDR. Whereas, from the post mortem report, Ex. C5, it is quite clear that the deceased had sustained RSA on 25.11.2013 at about 6.30 PM near Jail, Rupnagar, when the scooter on which he was riding slipped over a stone and fell on the road. First, he was taken to a private hospital, at Rupnagar and then to PGIMER. This fact also got fortified from the copy of DDR, Rupnagar, Ex. C6.

                   On perusal of the Postmortem report, Ex. C5, it is revealed that Late Gurjit Singh met with an accident, while he was driving the scooter, whereas on the contrary, in the copy of DDR, Ex. OP-5, it has been written that the deceased had met with an accident while he was driving the motorcycle. From these documents,  it is Apparent that the complicated & disputed questions of facts & law are involved in this case and to arrive at the veracity of the actual fact—whether at the time of accident, the deceased was driving/riding on the scooter or a motorcycle, leading of voluminous evidence, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses is required, which is not possible before this Forum, the proceedings before this Forum being summary in nature. In the case—‘Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel’, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the  proceedings before the Consumer Fora are essentially summary in nature and the mater having complex factual position could not be examined by the Consumer Fora and the appropriate Forum was the civil court.

7.                In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complainant may seek her remedy before the appropriate civil court, if she so desires, and may seek condonation of delay, if any, for the period this complaint remained pending in this Forum, as permissible under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

 

8.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 08.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.