Haryana

Sonipat

05/2015

PARVINDER S/O MAHENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,2. THE KHUBRU PRATHMIK KRISHI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. Saini

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.05 of 2015

                                Instituted on:07.01.2015

                                Date of order:27.11.2015

 

Parvinder son of late Mahender Singh, r/o village Nayabans, tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

                                          ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Sector 29, Iffco Tower, Plot no.3, Gurgaon.

2.The Khubru Prathmik Krishi Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Sale Point, Samapur, tehsil Ganaur, through its Secretary.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JS Saini Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent no.1.       

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte on 21.10.2015.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant being the legal heir of deceased Mahender Singh has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the deceased Mahender Singh purchased 37 bags of Urea Fertilizer for his crops vide receipt no.3804 dated 23.11.2012 for Rs.9921/-.  Under the scheme of Govt of Haryana, every farmer is insured with the respondent no.1 in case of unnatural death. The complainant is also entitled for the claim amount since his father has expired on 6.4.2013 in a motor vehicular accident.  The complainant has submitted the claim with the respondent no.1, but till date, the respondent no.1 has not disbursed the amount of policy and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has not fulfilled the necessary requirements of the claim and has also not provided the relevant documents for settlement of the claim and due to this, the respondent no.1 was unable to process the claim. The respondent no.1 has sent many letters to the complainant for providing necessary documents i.e. FIR, original purchase receipt etc., but of no use. So, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and is not entitled for any kind of relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Shri Ramesh Chander has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 and has filed the written statement on 21.8.2015.  But when the case was fixed for evidence of the respondent no.2, none has appeared on his behalf and due to this, the respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.10.2015.

          The respondent no.2, however, in its written statement has submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondent no.1 at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the death of Mahender Singh has occurred in a motor vehicular accident and as per the Haryana Govt. Scheme known as Sankat Haran Bima Policy, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount as death of Mahender Singh was unnatural.  The deceased Mahender Singh during his life time has purchased 37 bags of Urea on 23.11.2012 from respondent no.2, but unfortunately, he died on 6.4.2013. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents since they have failed to make the payment of the claim amount to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the complainant has not fulfilled the necessary requirements of the claim and has also not provided the relevant documents for settlement of the claim and due to this, the respondent no.1 was unable to process the claim. The respondent no.1 has sent many letters to the complainant for providing necessary documents i.e. FIR, original purchase receipt etc., but of no use. So, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and is not entitled for any kind of relief.

          We have perused the document Annexure D dated 6.5.2015 written by the insurance company to the complainant and vide this document, the respondent insurance company has demanded four documents i.e.

1.Nakad/Udhar Urea Ke Kharid Ki Mool Rasid,

2.Sale Register,

3.Delivery challan Rasid,

4.Samiti Ka Letter Jis Par Bechi Gayi Khad Ke Brand Ka Naam Darz Ho”.

 

          The complainant has submitted that the above said documents were provided to the insurance company. But there is nothing on record to prove this version of the complainant.  Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the complainant to provide the original or photo copy of the documents as demanded vide letter dated 6.5.2015 (Annexure D) to the respondent no.1 within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.  The respondent no.1 is also directed to dispose off the claim of the complainant within a period of 45 days, which shall start from the date when the complainant submits the documents either in original or Photostat.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  27.11.2015