State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sunita Devi. vs Iffco Tokio General Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 1 April, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 113/2018
Date of Presentation: 10.05.2018
Order Reserved on : 03.12.2018
Date of Order : 01.04.2019
......
Smt. Sunita Devi Wife of Shri Puran Chand Resident of Village
Dawardu Post Office Drang Tehsil Sadar District Mandi H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKIO General Company Limited through its
Branch Manager Branch Office First Floor Savitri Bhawan
Khalini District Shimla H.P.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Company Limited III Floor
IFFCO House 34 Nehru Palace New Delhi.
3. Branch Manager IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Company Limited Bhangrotu Near Medical College Tehsil
Balh District Mandi H.P.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Azad Advocate vice
Mr. Malkeeyat Singh Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Virender Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) 06.04.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.197/2016 titled Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Limited & Ors. whereby learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint filed by complainant.
Brief facts of Consumer Complaint:
2. Complainant Sunita Devi filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that son of complainant namely Chet Ram was owner of Motorcycle bearing No. HP-33C-8611. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured for OD claim and for personal accident claim w.e.f. 29.04.2014 to 28.04.2015 with opposite parties. It is pleaded that premium amount for own damage and premium amount for personal accident was paid to the opposite parties by deceased insured. It is further pleaded that on dated 08.08.2014 son of complainant insured died in the accident and FIR No.186/2014 was also registered. It is further pleaded that information regarding accidental death of son of complainant was given to the opposite parties and thereafter all requisite documents such as RC, insurance of said vehicle were submitted to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that opposite parties settled the own damage claim of vehicle but opposite parties did not settle personal accident claim of deceased insured till 2 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) date despite receiving premium of Rs.50/-(Fifty) from the deceased insured on account of personal accident claim. It is further pleaded that on dated 29.06.2016 complainant sent a registered letter to the office of opposite parties but opposite parties did not settle the claim. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.100000/- (One lac) alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of due till payment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) on account of mental tension and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.5000/-
(Five thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that present consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that own damage claim already stood paid to the complainant and it is further pleaded that complainant did not file claim qua personal accident claim of deceased insured. It is further pleaded that complicated facts are involved in the present consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to Civil Court for adjudication of dispute. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
3
Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018)
5. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainant after obtaining evidence from the parties on merits.
6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether limitation for filing consumer complaint starts from the date of accident or from the date of repudiation of claim by the Insurance company?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that son of deponent namely Chet Ram was owner of Motorcycle bearing No. HP-33C-8611. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured for OD claim and for personal accident claim w.e.f. 29.04.2014 to 4 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) 28.04.2015 with opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that premium for own damage and premium for PA claim was paid to the opposite parties by the deceased insured. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 08.08.2014 son of deponent insured died in the accident and FIR No.186/2014 was also registered. There is further recital in affidavit that information regarding accidental death of son of deponent was given to the opposite parties and thereafter all requisite documents such as RC, insurance of said vehicle, licence of driver were supplied to the surveyor of opposite parties namely Shri Vivek Sharma. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties settled the own damage claim of vehicle but opposite parties did not settle the personal accident claim of deceased till date despite receiving premium of Rs.50/- (Fifty) from the deceased on account of personal accident claim. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 29.06.2016 deponent sent a registered letter to the office of opposite party No.2 with all documents. State Commission has carefully perused all the documents filed by complainant.
10. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan Competent Authority of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that OD claim already stood settled and paid to the complainant. 5
Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) There is further recital in affidavit that complainant did not file personal accidental death claim of the deceased insured. There is further recital in affidavit that complicated facts are involved and complainant be relegated to Civil Court. State Commission has carefully perused all the documents filed by opposite parties.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for personal accident death claim of insured on account of death of son of complainant namely Shri Chet Ram in the accident while driving the vehicle and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the Insurance policy placed on record. As per Insurance policy the opposite parties have receive premium to the tune of Rs.50/- (Fifty) qua personal accident claim of owner-cum-driver. As per Insurance policy Insurance company took the liability to pay amount of Rs.100000/- (One lac) on account of personal accident claim. Insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 29.04.2014 to 28.04.2015. Owner of vehicle i.e. Insured died during the operation of Insurance policy in vehicle accident.
12. Learned District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that consumer complaint was not filed within two years from the date of cause of 6 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) action. Learned District Forum has taken the cause of action from the date of accident. State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action accrues in the consumer complaint after repudiation of claim by the Insurance company and does not arise from the date of accident. See 2012 (II) CPJ 312 NC tilted Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited Versus IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
13. State Commission has carefully perused the postmortem report No.159/14 placed on record. As per postmortem report No.159/14 deceased died due to Antemortem spinal injury and as per postmortem report death was instantaneous in nature. It is proved on record that complainant is mother of deceased and falls within Class-I legal heir as specified under Hindu Succession Act 1956. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that deceased had executed any testamentary document. It is proved on record that deceased died intestate and it is well settled law that in intestate death legal heirs are legally entitled for Insurance claim. As per nomination Rules 2015 three categories of persons fall within the definition of beneficial nominee (1) Spouse (2) Children (3) Parents. It is well settled law that in death claim cause of action is continuity in nature till the claim is not paid by the Insurance company after receiving premium for the same. See 1993 (3) 7 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) CPJ 305 NC titled Bank of India Versus HCL Ltd. & Anr. See 1998 (2) CPC 577 NC Time properties and Promotors Ltd. Versus Rakesh Jain. See 1999 (2) CPJ 13 titled State Bank of India Versus Anand Mohan Saha. See 2002 (2) CPC 426 NC M/s. Syndicate Bank Versus Bangalore Development Authority. See 2006 (2) CPC 667 SC titled Mukesh Kumari Versus M. Lal Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation & Anr. In the present consumer complaint death of insured due to accident took place on dated 08.08.2014 and consumer complaint was filed on dated 08.08.2016 before the learned District Forum.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation amount to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) for mental agony and harassment is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not settle the personal accident death claim of the deceased despite the fact that opposite parties have settled the OD claim of the vehicle. Complainant is a lady and is mother whose son has died in accident in the prime youth age and she is legally entitled for reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) is 8 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not settle the personal accident death claim of the son of complainant despite registered letter sent in the office of opposite party No.2 at Delhi and even opposite parties did not file application before the Learned District Forum demanding relevant documents for the settlement of personal accident claim. Complainant has also engaged Advocate before the Learned District Forum and has also paid litigation costs. Hence it is held that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Complainant has specifically mentioned in her affidavit that she has submitted all the papers on dated 29.06.2016 by way of registered letter in the office of opposite party No.2. Affidavit filed by complainant is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by complainant.
17. Even during the pendency of consumer complaint before learned District Forum w.e.f. 08.08.2016 till 06.04.2018 no offer was given by the opposite parties to pay 9 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) death claim to the mother of deceased. Affidavit filed by Rajiv Ranjan is not helpful to the opposite parties because Rajiv Ranjan has mentioned his address as Sector 28A Madhya Marg Chandigarh. On the contrary registered letter alongwith all documents were submitted by the complainant in the office of opposite party No.2 situated at 34 Nehru Palace New Delhi. No official posted in New Delhi office of opposite parties filed any personal affidavit refuting the affidavit filed by complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of above stated facts order of learned District Forum warrants interference by State Commission.
18. Submission of Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance company that complicated facts are involved and complainant be relegated to Civil Court for adjudication of dispute is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to relegate complainant mother of deceased insured to Civil Court. State Commission is of the opinion that present matter can be disposed of properly and effectively under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed. Order of learned District Forum dated 06.04.2018 10 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.197/2016 titled Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Limited & Ors. is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay personal death claim of deceased insured to the complainant being legal-heir of deceased to the tune of Rs.100000/- (One lac) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment within one month after the receipt of certified copy of order.
20. It is further ordered that in addition opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). In addition it is further ordered that opposite parties shall pay jointly and severally litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant. Insurance policy issued by opposite parties in favour of deceased insured namely Chet Ram and postmortem report No.159/2014 dated 08.08.2014 of deceased insured Chet Ram shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per 11 Sunita Devi Versus IFFCO Tokio General Company Ltd. & Ors. (F.A. No.113/2018) rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Sunita Sharma Member 01.04.2019.
*GUPTA* 12