BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 294/2006
Date of presentation: 28.09.2006
Date of decision: 22.07.2009
Shri Hira Lal Verma S/O late Shri Tula Ram,
R/O Village Malgi, P.O. Pandoa, Tehsil Suni,
District Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through the Divisional Manager,
Divisonal Office, Timber House, Shimla, H.P.
…Opposite Party
For the complainant: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate vice
Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Sanjay Karol, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OP-United India Insurance Company “in short OP-Company” on the allegations that he is owner of Mahindra & Mahindra Pick Up, which bears registration No.HP-63-0614 vide Annexure C-2. It is averred that the aforesaid vehicle, was, insured with the OP-Company, vide insurance policy bearing No.111300/31/03/03080 valid from 29.03.2004 to 28.03.2005 vide Annexure C-1, which met with an accident on 18.02.2005, resulting in extensive damage. The complainant, further, proceeded to aver, that, the factum of accident was brought to the notice of the OP-Company, as also, Rapat No.9 dated 19.02.2005, was lodged with Police Chowki Suni. It is averred that the OP-Company settled the own damage claim of the vehicle, yet, the injuries as received by him, in the aforesaid accident, causing permanent disability of 15%, rendering him handicapped, was not settled, whereas, the owner of the vehicle, was duly insured under the insurance policy. 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, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, lack of cause of action, and validity of the driving licence of the driver. On merits, it is admitted, on behalf of the OP-Company, that, it is liable to pay compensation, only in the event of death, permanent total disablement and loss of limb. It is contended since the complainant has neither intimated about injury sustained by him nor filed any claim, hence, the OP-Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the driver-cum-owner. 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 adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The parties do not wrangle over the fact of issuance of insurance policy with regard to vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra, which bears registration No.HP-63-0614, of which the complainant is owner. Also, the validity of insurance policy, commencing from 29.03.2004 to 28.03.2005 and the aforesaid vehicle, having been met, with an accident, on, 18.02.2005, is not in controversy. What is, asserted in the complaint, is, that the OP-Company, did not indemnify him for the injuries, he, received in the accident, on, 18.02.2005. The OP-Company, has, defended its ground on the lack of non-filing of the claim and exclusion clause –IV of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which prohibits them to indemnify the owner-cum-driver, when he comes to receive only 15% disability, as were entailed upon the complainant.
6. The complainant himself has asserted in paragraph 5 of the complaint, that, he suffered multiple injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%, in the aforesaid accident, resulting him, handicapped and unable to enjoy normal life, which fact is also proven from disability certificate placed on record by the complainant which bears Annexure C-4. Against this, the OP-Company has contended that as per Section IV- of Personal Accident Cover for owner driver, they are liable to pay compensation, in case of death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye, permanent total disablement from injuries to the extent of 100%. As, the complainant has received permanent total disablement from injuries, to, the extent of 15% only, and has not incurred disability of the category, as, enjoined in the insurance cover, hence, the action of the OP-Company, in, not paying the compensation, to the complainant, cannot be construed to be unjustified and untenable and, the complainant, by no stretch of imagination, can, assert that the OP-Company in not indemnifying him, has committed a deficiency in service and indulged in an unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint, being, without merit, deserves dismissal.
7. Resultantly, the relief as claimed by the complainant, in the relief clause, is hereby declined, and, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed and it is ordered accordingly. However, there shall be 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 22nd day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.