State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Kulwinder Kaur on 16 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.101 of 2024
Date of Institution : 11.02.2024
Reserved on : 03.03.2026
Date of Decision : 16.03.2026
M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajpura-Zirakpur Road, Banur,
Mohali, Punjab, through its Manager now through Sanjeev Kumar,
A.M. U.I.I.Co. Limited, R.O., Legal Cell, 108, 3rd Floor, Surya Tower,
The Mall, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Kulwinder Kaur aged about 37 years W/o Late Baldev Singh,
R/o Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali). (Wife)
2. Darshan Kaur aged about 65 years W/o Sh. Amarjit Singh, R/o
Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali). (Mother)
3. Gurmanjot Singh aged about 9 years S/o Late Baldev Singh,
R/o Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali), through
her mother/Natural Guardian Kulwinder Kaur W/o Late Baldev
Singh, R/o Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
(Son)
4. Ramneet Kaur aged about 18 years D/o Late Baldev Singh, R/o
Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali). (Daughter)
5. Japneet Kaur aged about 15 years D/o Late Baldev Singh, R/o
Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali). (Daughter)
(All are legal heirs of Late Baldev Singh S/o Sh. Amarjit Singh,
R/o Village Khizargarh, Karala, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
.......Respondents No.1-5/Complainants
6. Ravneet Singh S/o Sukhwinder Singh, R/o P.O. Banur, Tehsil
and District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (agent of M/s United India
Insurance Company Limited).
.......Respondent No.6/Opposite Party No.2
2
First Appeal No.101 of 2024
First Appeal under Section 41 of
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting
aside the order dated 13.04.2023 passed
by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib
Camp Court at SAS Nagar (Mohali) in
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.1169 of
2018.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
Present:-
For the Appellant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate For Respondents No.1-5 : Sh. Subhkarman Singh Gill, Adv.
For Respondent No.6 : None
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The Appellant/OP No.1, i.e. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, through Assistant Manager has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib Camp Court at SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the "District Commission") in RBT/Consumer 3 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 Complaint No.1169 of 2018, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. There was delay of 220 days in filing of the Appeal. M.A. No.247 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit. Notice in the Application was issued to the Respondents and they filed written reply to the Application wherein certain preliminary objections were raised mentioning that the delay had not been properly explained.
3. After hearing the oral arguments raised by the parties, the delay of 220 days was condoned vide order dated 30.08.2024 subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-, out of which Rs.5000/- was ordered to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and remaining Rs.5000/- was ordered to be paid to the Respondent No.1 by way of demand draft or by transferring in her account. M.A. was disposed off accordingly.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainants which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainants being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-
"It is the humble request of the complainant that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased to :-4
First Appeal No.101 of 2024
a) Direct the OP's to settle the actual claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 lacs without any delay.
b) Direct the OP's to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant of Rs. 2 lacs with total amount of Rs. 4 lacs along with future interest @ 18% till its realization for causing harassment, humiliation, mental agony besides financial loss.
c) Further it is also prayed that the appropriate litigation expenses may also be allowed in favour of the complainant.
d) Grant any such other relief as the Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper."
5. Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs, they had appeared and filed written version wherein certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were denied.
6. By considering the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereto and as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant part of 5 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 the order as mentioned in para 7 of the order dated 13.04.2023 is reproduced as under :-
"7. As a corollary of our above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed. OP No.1 is held liable for deficiency in service. The OP No.1, directed as under :-
[a] To pay the amount of Rs.2 Lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint within 30 days, failing which interest @9% p.a. shall be payable.
[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- litigation charges to the complainant.
Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legal process.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back District Commission Mohali, for consignment"
6First Appeal No.101 of 2024
7. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the District Commission, OPs have filed the present Appeal by raising a number of grounds.
8. Mr. Lalit Garg Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP No.1 has vehemently argued that the District Commission had passed the order without any application of mind as a detailed reply was filed wherein certain preliminary objections were made and other averments made in the Complaint were also denied. The claim was not paid as the Complainant had failed to supply any document to deposit an amount of Rs.100/-. Simply it has been mentioned by the District Commission that the Complainant had paid the premium amount of Rs.45,990/- through cheque an Rs.100/- was paid in cash which was towards compulsory personal accident cover and there was no reason to pay meagre amount of Rs.100/-. The District Commission had passed the order without taking into consideration the stand taken in the reply and the finding had been recorded only on the basis of presumption. Further, the District Commission had travelled beyond the terms and conditions of the policy and the findings recorded by the District Commission are liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District Commission had also erred while directing that if the compensation amount of Rs.2 lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint is not paid within a period of 30 days, the amount would be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum. The interest should have been granted @ 5% per annum. At the end, 7 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 learned Counsel has relied upon judgments of cases, i.e. (1) "United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Dalbir Kaur @ Dalvir Kaur & others", Law Finder Doc id#2382389 (State Commission Punjab), (2) "Dhanraj Vs. New Inda Assurance Co. Limited & another", 2004(4) RCR (Civil)787 (SC) and (3) "New India Assurance Co.
Limited Vs. Meera Bai & others" (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 174 in support of his oral arguments.
9. Mr. Subhkarman Singh Gill Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1-5/Complainants has opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Appellant. Further, he has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and the same has been passed by taking into consideration the averments made in the Complaint and documents available on the file. Detailed findings have been recorded by the District Commission and no interference is required.
10. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for both the Appellant and Respondents No.1-5. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.6. We have also gone through the record of the case and the relevant evidence/documents available on the file.
11. After hearing the oral arguments from both the sides, the issue for determination by this Commission is as to whether the Complainants were entitled to personal accident cover or not? The Appellant/Insurance Company has placed on record the policy 8 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 documents wherein schedule of premium has been mentioned. The relevant part of the policy is reproduced as under :-
SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM (IN Rs) OWN DAMAGE LIABILITY Basic premium on Vehicle and accessories A. Basic - OD Rs.7,790.40 B. Basic-TP Rs.31,626.00 Total Rs.7,790.40 Total Rs.31,626.00 Add : Add :
Cover for lamps, tyres, tubes etc. Rs.1,168.56 LL to paid Driver IMT 28 Rs.100.00 Sub Total (Additions) Rs.1,68.56 Sub Total (Additions) Rs.100.00 Less: Gross TP (B) Rs.31,726.00 No Claim Bonus 20% Rs.1,791.79 Gross OD & TP : Rs.38,893.00 Sub Total (Deductions) Rs.1791.79 (A) + (B) Gross OD(A) Rs.7,167.00 From perusal of above schedule of premium, an amount of Rs.100/- was to be paid to cover the life of paid driver. As per the version of the Complainants, premium amount of Rs.100/- was paid in cash for personal accident cover which was covering the owner-cum-driver. The reasoning has been given by the District Commission that there was no occasion to pay Rs.100/- toward personal accident cover when huge amount had been paid. The stand of the Appellant is that nothing was paid towards personal accident to cover at the time of taking the policy. It is pertinent to mention here that when a person had paid Rs.100/- as premium to cover the paid driver then why he would not have paid the meagre of Rs.100/- towards personal accident cover. There was no justification that a person would like to pay the huge amount of insurance premium and he would not pay meager amount of Rs.100/- towards personal accident cover. It might 9 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 be that the insured might not be having this idea in mind and thought it proper to pay the meagre amount of Rs.100/- in cash. Even otherwise, it would not be presumed that a person who had paid Rs.45,893/- towards premium of policy by way of cheque, then he would not like to pay Rs.100/- towards personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver. The District Commission had passed the order by taking into consideration the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereto. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant as the order passed by the District Commission is detailed one and has been passed by taking into consideration the stand of both the parties. Moreover, the equity goes in favour of the Complainants as it was also the duty of the Insurance Company or its agent to tell each and everything to their customers at the time of taking/obtaining the policy.
12. In view of above detailed discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the detailed findings have been recorded by the District Commission and we do not find any merits in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
13. The Appellant/OP No.1 had deposited an amount Rs.1,52,944/- at the time of filing of the Appeal with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, 10 First Appeal No.101 of 2024 shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Respondent/Complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
14. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
15. The Appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER March 16, 2026 (MM)