JUDGM ENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula („State Commission‟) dated 27.09.2017 in FA No. 957/2016 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/OP and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, („the District Forum‟) order dated26.08.2016 which partly allowed the complaint.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainants, are that Ajit Singh (since deceased), was the registered owner of Motorcycle No. HR-14H- 6894 and obtained an insurance policy No.111281131130100005836 from United India Insurance Company Limited (OP/Insurer”) from 08.11.2013 to 07.11.2014, with the total sum insured being Rs. 29,000. An additional premium of Rs.50 was paid to cover the personal accident risk of the owner-driver, in the event of death while driving the insured vehicle. On 01.04.2014, while Ajit Singh was driving the said motorcycle at Village Badli, District Jhajjar, the vehicle met with an accident, resulting in severe damage to the motorcycle and fatal injuries to Ajit Singh, who succumbed on the same day. FIR No.140 was registered at PS Sadar Bahadurgarh on 02.04.2014. The complainants lodged a claim with the OP Insurer seeking Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation on account of the death of their son. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 12.06.2015, treating the matter as “no claim,” which, according to the complainants, amounted to clear deficiency in service. Consequently, they filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, 1986, seeking directions to the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000 with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and harassment, and Rs.5,500 as litigation expenses.

4. In its written version, the Insurance Company raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction of the District Forum. While admitting that the motorcycle was insured for the relevant period and that the accident occurred on 01.04.2014, the OP contended that intimation of the accident was given belatedly on 09.05.2014 by Manjit Singh, brother of the deceased, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that Ajit Singh did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle, as he was authorised only to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) commercial vehicles, and on these grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 26.08.2016 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:-

“5. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it has been observed that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondent who wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the genuine claim of complainant on some baseless grounds. We, therefore, direct the respondent to make the payment of personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver Ajit Singh i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per motorcycle/scooter package policy Ex. R-7 to the complainants on account of death claim of their son along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of life assured Ajit Singh i.e. 3.4.2014 till realization of final payment to the complainants. The complainants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the OP filed Appeal No.957 of 2016 and the State Commission vide order dated 27.09.2017 dismissed the Appeal with following observations:

“8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and p