State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Sweeti Sharma on 25 September, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1018 of 2017 Date of the Institution:23.08.2017 Date of Decision: 25.09.2017 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager, Now represented through the duly authorized signatory Regional Office, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .....Appellant Versus 1. Sweeti Sharma, widow of Late Sh. Ved Parkash. 2. Shilpi Sharma, daughter of Late Sh. Ved Parkash 3. Chetna Sharma, daughter of Late Sh. Ved Parkash 4. Naveen Sharma son of Late Sh. Ved Parkash All resident of village Ratauli, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. .....Respondents CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member Present:- Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant. O R D E R
URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:
1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Hisar-OP is in appeal against the Order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'District Forum'), Yamuna Nagar, whereby the complaint of Smt. Sweeti Sharma and Ors. Legal Heirs of deceased of Ved Parkash has been allowed with the following directions:-
"to pay Rs.1 (one) lac i.e. the sum insured to the LRs of the deceased Shri Pawan Sharma in equal share. The share of the minor, if any, will be deposited in the FDR till the date of maturity. Further, the OP Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses".
2. Briefly stated, the Complaint was initially filed by Sh. Ved Parkash father of the deceased Pawan Sharma, being Legal Representative. However, after the death of Shri Ved Parkash, father of the deceased Pawan Sharma, LRs were impleaded vide order dated 17.05.2016. The son of the complainant Pawan Sharma was registered owner of the motor cycle bearing No.HR71-C-4108 make Hero Honda, Splender, which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide policy bearing No.39010231136202948976 valid from 12.11.2013 to 11.11.2014. In addition, Rs.50/- were also paid as additional premium covering the risk of compulsory PA cover (owner driver) of Rs.1 lac. On 13.02.2014, Pawan Sharma, met with an accident and expired. FIR bearing No.22 dated 13.02.2014 under Section 279 and 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadhaura and postmortem of Pawan Sharma was also conducted. Even though, the claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company by Shri Ved Parkash father of the deceased and necessary formalities were also completed, yet no claim was settled by the OP insurance Company despite visiting so many times and issuing a legal notice on 28.02.2015. This constituted the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Insurance Company. The complainants prayed for directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac alongwith interest @18% per annum and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.
3. In its reply, opposite party pleaded that the claim intimation dated 10.04.2014 was received by OP Insurance Company from the complainant to the effect that motor cycle bearing No.HR71C-4018 driven by and registered in the name of Pawan Sharma (son of Ved Parkash) had met with an accident on 13.09.2014 resulting into death of Pawan Sharma. On receipt of the said intimation, the complainant was desired by the Company to submit necessary documents including R.C, Insurance Policy and Driving License of Pawan Sharma alongwith copy of FIR etc. The complainant submitted a copy of learner license of Pawan Sharma issued by Licensing Authority Bilaspur bearing No.LL/HR71/5637/2013 valid from 17.10.2013 to 16.04.2014 and on receipt of documents, the claim was further processed. It was found that there was an inordinate delay of more than 2 months in giving the intimation to the OP Insurance Company which was in violation of the condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. Further, the deceased Pawan Sharma was holding only learner Driving License at the time of accident and he was alone and was not accompanied by a pillion rider holding a valid DL. Moreover, there was no 'L" place affixed on front and rear side of the motor cycle which again violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the Rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. On that basis, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OP and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the complainants.
4. Against the impugned order dated 18.07.2017/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record from the perusal whereof it is evident that though the learner licence was issued in November 13, 2013, the accident took place four months later i.e. in February, 2014. During this period even the driver of the Motorcycle must have acquired sufficient experience to drive the vehicle. The mere fact that the licence was a learner license and pillion rider was not accompanying the driver of the vehicle was not enough to non suit the claimant, especially when there was no allegation of rash or negligent driving. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was not legally justified. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
September 25th, 2017 Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench R.K.