BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 34/2008
Date of presentation: 29.02.2008
Date of decision: 30.12.2009
Sh. Jagdish Chand S/o Sh.Mansa Ram,
Resident of Village and Post Office Shargaon,
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Regional Manager, Opp. Anup
Petrol Station, Kaithu, Shimla-3.H.P.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
The Mall Solan (H.P.)
through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Anirudh, Advocate vice
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Ms. Anju Kohli, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-16-2108, which was insured by him, with the OP-Company, and was valid up to, 22.03.2008. It is averred that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, on, 25.07.2007, during the currency of the insurance policy, in which both the legs of the complainant were grievously injured , as a result of which permanent disablement was caused to him. He further averred that, he, was admitted in Zonal Hospital Solan as an indoor patient w.e.f. 25.07.2007 to 06.08.2007, hence, he is not in a position to perform his daily normal life and there is total loss to the earning of the complainant, on account of total incapability. The complainant further proceeded to aver that he has paid premium for his personal accident amounting to Rs.100/-, hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/-, from the OP-Company. But the OP-Company, failed to settle the insurance claim, and is playing delay tactics. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP-Company, in its version, to the complaint, admitted that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle and the same was insured with it. It is denied that the complainant was seating on a parapet and was waiting for his truck at Sanaura, the deriver lost control over the same vehicle which hit against the tree and parapet on which the complainant was seating. It is denied that the complainant received grievous injury. They further contend that the claim was not lodged within six calendar months of such injury. It is further contended without admitting the liability, the insured shall not in the aggregate excess the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
5. The parties do not wrangle over the fact, that, the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-16-2108 was insured with the OP-Company, as, is, succored upon the existence of insurance cover Annexure-B, placed on record. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred during the currency of the insurance policy. It is also not in dispute that the driver-cum-owner of the insured vehicle was insured under personal accident. The complainant, is, having a grievance, that, the action of the OP-Company, in, not settling his insurance claim, qua the injuries received by him in the accident, tantamounts to both deficiency in service, as well, as, an unfair trade practice, on the part of the OP-Company. The OP-Company, in its reply, has contended, that, as the complainant was admittedly sitting on a parapet and was waiting for his truck, the driver lost control over the same, which hit against the tree and parapet, hence, he has received the injuries, if any, while the vehicle was not being driven by him, as such, the OP-Company, is exculpating its liability to indemnify the insured. As also, it, is, contended, that, hence, while he was not occupying the vehicle, rather, was purportedly hit by the purported negligent use, of, the vehicle in a Public place, the claim for, compensation for, injuries, if any, sustained can be laid before the competent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
6. Assuming that he was badly injured in the accident, even then, the complainant has not been able to place on record medical evidence to prove the indemnifiable insurable disablement, he, had come to receive in the aforesaid accident. He has only placed on record the discharge slip Annexure-A, wherefrom, we are unable to adjudge the disablement accruing from the injuries, if any received by him. For lack of adduction of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence, it cannot be construed, that, both legs of the complainant were grievously injured and, that, too, within the scope of the, insurable indemnifiable cover.
7. Besides, the complainant has also not been able to place on record any proof qua lodging of the claim arising from the very incident, with the OP-Company, as it has been categorically, contended on behalf of the OP-Company, that, no claim whatsoever, was lodged with them, by the complainant. It was incumbent upon the complainant, to have lodged the claim with the OP-Company. His failure to do so, also smacks suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim, so lodged by him before this Forum. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in, concluding that the complaint has not been able to prove on record any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company. Moreover, we are of the view, that, in the manner the accident take place while with his not occupying the vehicle, rather, with his admittedly sitting on, a parapet, at, which place he was hit, by, the insured vehicle, constitutes an injury to him caused by the purported negligent user of the insured vehicle in a public place, which manner of his receiving injuries, by the purported negligent manner of its being driven, hence, may vest jurisdiction, for, awarding of compensation, if any, by the competent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
8. The result of the above discussion, is, that there is no force in this complaint and it being merit less, is, liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly. No order as to the costs. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 30th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.