Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of postmortem report Ex.C-2, pictorial diagram Ex.C-3, copy of FIR No.108 Ex.C-4, copy of verification certificate Ex.C-5,  copy of legal notice Ex.C-6, postal receipt Ex.C-7, copy of RC Ex.C-8, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-9, copy of death certificate Ex.C-10, copy of licence of Gagandeep Singh Ex.C-11. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit Gurpreet Singh Manager Legal , ICICI Lombard, GIC Limited, copy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.R-2, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R-3, IMT 17 Ex.R-4, IMT 28 Ex.R-5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Faridkot accepted the complaint of the complainant directing the OP to pay the amount of Rs.73,500/- to the complainant for death of Gagandeep Singh and Rs.6500/- for mental harassment. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Faridkot dated 24.08.2011, the OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The vehments submission raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before us is that Gagandeep Singh deceased, being driver of the said vehicle,  was not insured and separate premium was not paid for him and hence, there was no coverage for the paid driver under IMT 17, hence the claim is not maintainable. It was further contended that complainants being the legal heirs of the said Gagandeep Singh have no locus standi or cause of action to file the consumer complaint. It was further submitted by the OP that separate premium under IMT 28, is certified to be paid for the coverage of the driver of the vehicle only. It was further submitted that remedy of the complainant does not lie before the Consumer Forum and the remedy is under the Workman Compensation Act only. The above-referred evidence has been sought to be repelled by the counsel for the complainants now respondent in this appeal by arguing to the contrary before us. We have examined the order of the District Forum Faridkot in this case, as well as the file of the case. The District Forum recorded the finding in the order under challenge in this case to the effect that Gagandeep Singh deceased was working as driver and was insured under the insurance policy Ex.R-2 and he died in the Motor Vehicle accident and he died during the coverage of the policy, vide his death certificate Ex.C-10. The District Forum observed that the OP received premium of Rs.100/-, as personal accident insurance of owner-cum-driver. The contention was raised by the OP before the District Forum that driver was not covered for separate premium and it was not paid. We have examined the pleadings of the parties coupled with affidavit of Harshdeep Kaur complainant Ex.C-1 on the record. She has deposed in her affidavit that Gagandeep Singh was driver of the said vehicle was earning Rs.4500/- per month. He was, thus, a  paid driver,  as per the pleadings as well as affidavit of Harshdeep Kaur complainant on the record. His postmortem certificate is Ex.C-2 proving his death due to accidental injuries, which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature. FIR Ex.C-4 is on the record. Legal notice was served upon the OP, vide Ex.C-6 and R.C Certificate is Ex.C-8, insurance policy Ex.C-9 on the record. Death Certificate of Gagandeep Singh is Ex.C-10 on the record. We find from perusal of the certificate-cum-policy-schedule Ex.C-9 that the premium of paid owner (ENDT.IMT 28) is recorded as Rs.25/- as premium whereas PA cum for owner driver is against the premium of Rs.100/-. We find that even paid driver under IMT 28 has been covered and premium of Rs.25/- has been received, vide certificate cum insurance policy Ex.C-9 on the record.

6.      The District Forum has, thus, correctly recorded this observation in its order that under endorsement IMT 28, OP agreed to indemnify the insured against legal liability. We find that terms and conditions of the insurance contract Ex.C-9 are binding on the parties. It is proved the fact that Gagandeep Singh was working as paid driver with insured, vide insurance policy Ex.R-2. The OP received Rs.100/- for personal accident insurance of owner-cum-driver for paid driver. OP also received premium of Rs.25/- under IMT 28 and the insurer agreed to indemnify against legal liability under Workman Compensation Act or at common law, so the OP admitted their liability under IMT 28 but no such compensation has been paid to the legal heirs of Gagandeep Singh in this case despite receiving the premium of Rs.25/- under IMT 28.