Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP), Camp at Nurpur
Consumer Complaint No.144/08
Date of presentation: 16.6.08
Date of decision: 25.11.2009
1. Sh. Parkash Chand son of Sh. Chanako Ram, and father of deceased Kuldeep Singh,
2. Kailasho Devi wife of Sh. Parkash Chand, and mother of deceased Kuldeep Singh, both residents of village Kamnala PO Bhaleta, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, HP
Complainants
Versus
1. LIC of India, through it’s Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office-Shimla, (HP)
2. Branch Manager LIC of India, Branch Office Nurpur, District Kangra (HP)
Opposite parties
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
PRESIDENT: R.K.MITTAL
MEMBER: SH.PARDEEP DOGRA
For the complainant: Sh. Tippu Khan, Advocate
For O.Ps: Sh. Atul Gupta, Advocate, vice Sh. R .R. Sharma, Advocate
R.K.MITTAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
ORDER
The brief – facts of the complaint, as alleged are that one Sh. Kuldeep – Chand, (son of the complainants) had taken a Policy bearing No.152406115, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite – party No.2, on 15.5.2001. Valid upto 15.5.2021. As per the terms, and conditions mentioned in clause 10-2b of the Insurance Policy, if a person dies – in an – accident, then his legal representatives, are entitled to get an additional – sum – equal to the sum assured. It is alleged that
Sh. Kuldeep – Chand( hereinafter – referred to as life-assured), had died in an accident on 20.7.2004, at Jassur – Dhameta – Road, near village – Mahtoli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra(HP). F.I.R. No.245/04, regarding the said – accident was registered with Police Station, Nurpur, for an offence under section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the driver Sh. Surinder Singh of truck No.HP-38-A-6565. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor Sh. Ashutosh – Sharma Medical officer of civil Hospital Nurpur on 20.7.2004. The claim papers alongwith all the required – documents were submitted with the opposite – parties, but they had only sent a cheque of Rs.58228, to the – complainants.
It is alleged by the complainants that they are also entitled to the payment of Rs.50,000/-, on – account of accidental benefits, with – interest @ 9% per – annum with effect from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 20.7.2004, till it’s final payment. They have also claimed compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for their mental – agony, and harassment. They have also claimed litigation charges, because the opposite parties are stated to be deficient in rendering the proper – services to them.
2. The opposite parties have contested this complaint by filing their – reply on 18.2.2008, in which they have contended that since there is no consumer – dispute, so, the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainants do not have any cause of action to file this – complaint. They are also estopped from filing this complaint, by their act, conduct, commissions, and omissions. They have contended that the complaint is false one. The life assured had taken the Insurance Policy with profits, for 20 years, which was to start with effect from 18.5.2001, and it was to mature on 15.5.2021.
They have contended that the complainants have failed to produce the registration certification of the – scooter, and driving licence of the deceased before – them, despite number of requests/reminders. They have also contended that the deceased-life assured was driving the scooter, and had died on the spot, as the result of collusion of the scooter with the said – tralla/truck. They have contended that the registration – certificate of the scooter, and the driver – licence of the deceased were very vital – documents, for the settlement of the accidental – benefits. Since, the complainants had failed to produce the copies of the same, so the claim of the complainants qua the accidental benefits, could not be – settled. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the – complaint.
3. We have considered the arguments of Sh. Tippu Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, and of Sh. Atul – Gupta, Advocate vice Sh.R.R.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties, and we have also carefully gone through the case file, facts, and the evidence on the record.
4. The complainant No.1 Sh. Parkash Chand, has fully supported, and corroborated the facts/averments of the – complaint, on – oath, in his affidavit Ex.CW-1. Annexure C-1, and
C-2, are the copies of the payments of the premiums of the Insurance – Policy. Annexure C-3, is the photo – copy of the Insurance Policy of the deceased/life assured. Annexure C-4 is the photo – copy of the Award dated 1.10.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (HP), in which it is discussed that the driving – licence of the deceased was not – required, at – all. However, it is a fact that the deceased-life assured had died in an – accident. Under the terms and conditions of the Insurance – Policy, his legal – representatives/parents are entitled to get the accidental – benefits of the Insurance – Policy, purchased by the deceased-life – assured from the opposite parties.
5. On the other – hand, Ex.OPW-1, is the affidavit of Sh. Vishwanath, Manager, on behalf of the opposite parties. Annexure RW-1, is the original – Insurance – Policy. Annexure RW-4, is the copy of the F.I.F. of the afore said accident.
6. Admittedly, the deceased-life assured, had died in an accident of his scooter, with the tralla/truck bearing registration No.HP-38A-6565 on 20.7.2004, at village Mohtli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, so, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties on the ground that they (complainants) had failed to supply the copy of the registration – certificate of the scooter, and the copy of the driving – licence of the deceased-life assured, is totally un-justified. Hence, it is crystal – clear that the opposite – parties have been – deficient in rendering the proper – services to the complainants. So, the present complaint deserves to be partly – allowed.
7. Accordingly, it is partly – allowed. The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to release the amount of Rs.50,000/-,on account of accidental – benefits, to the parents of the deceased – life – assured, alongwith – interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, till it’s final – payment. Due to un-justified, and un-wanted act, and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainants have suffered mental agony, and harassment, so we assess Rs.5000/- as compensation, for their mental – agony, and harassment, and Rs.3000/-, as litigation costs of this complaint, which will be paid by the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to the complaints within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this – order. The copy of this – order be sent to the parties, free of costs, and the file after it’s due completion be consigned to the record-room.
Announced R.K.Mittal
Date: 25.11.2009 President
(Camp at Nurpur)
Pardeep Dogra
Member
Pkw
Tags: LIC of India