Punjab

Gurdaspur

CC/262/2019

1. Poonam - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Bhupinder Singh Adv.

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GURDASPUR
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX , B BLOCK ,2nd Floor Room No. 328
 
Complaint Case No. CC/262/2019
( Date of Filing : 16 Aug 2019 )
 
1. 1. Poonam
aged 40 years Wd/o Late Sh. Vijay Kumar R/o H.No.82 Mohalla Ram Pura Pathankot Tehsil and Distt Pathankot
2. 2. Sourabh
aged 17 years R/o H.No.82 Mohalla Ram Pura Pathankot
3. 3. Gaurav
aged 11 years minor through his mother Poonam att R/o H.No.82 Mohalla Ram Pura Pathankot
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. LIC of India
through its Manager Branch Unit 2 Saili Road Pathankot
2. 2. Punjab National Bank
through its Manager Branch Model Town Pathankot
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Naveen Puri PRESIDENT
  Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sh.Bhupinder Singh Adv., Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sh.Rattan Singh Maan, Adv. for OP. No.1. Sh.Kuldip Raj Mahajan & Sh.Amit Mahajan, Advs. for OP. No.2., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 07 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

The present complaint has been filed by Mrs. Poonam (Wd/o Vijay Kumar DLI) for self and also on behalf of her two minor sons (Saurabh & Gaurav); being resident of Pathankot (Ex.C8) against the titled opposite parties (hereinafter, for short, the OP1 Insurer and the OP2 Bank) and being aggrieved at non-acceptance/rejection/refusal by the OP1 insurer of 'death-claim' of her late husband on grounds of closure/cancellation/non-existence of the related LIP (Life Insurance Policy) during his life-time itself sans any information/intimation to him or to his family members, for no fault/lapse on their part.

2.       The Vijay Kumar deceased (complainant's husband) during his lifetime, held one Savings Bank A/c # 2917000107251290 with the OP2 Bank and had purchased one Jeevan Anand LIP from the OP1 insurers @ premium of Rs.12,373/- for an S.I. (Sum Insured) of Rs.1,70,000/- under double benefit accidental death scheme.  The premium was paid through cheque # 84332 (31.07.2017) drawn upon the OP2 bank.  

3.         Thereafter, Vijay Kumar insured moved to J & K to attend to his professional work/duty there carrying the impression/understanding that his LIP has been alive. However, on the night of 20.08.2017 Vijay Kumar accidentally fell from the roof-top of his house at Jammu and met an accidental death, then and there. The requisite FIR (First Information Report) was duly lodged locally & PMR (Post Mortem Report) dated 21.08.2017 (Ex.C6) was issued by the hospital authorities. And, further the related death-certificate (Ex.C7) was got issued from Pathankot. 

4.       The complainant, after having come out of the shock of her husband's death approached the OP1 insurers for filing the death-claim of her deceased husband when she came to know that the related LIP stood canceled on 10.08.2017 (Ex.C1) as the 'premium' paying cheque (Ex.C2) was returned unpaid (Ex.C3) by the OP2 Bank with remarks 'cheque-book' not entered in the system'. However, (Ex.C4) the statement of her late husband's related S.B. A/c account with the OP2 Bank shows credit balance sufficient to pay the premium-pay cheque as on 02.08.2017, the date of return of the same. Lastly, the complainant pleads that entering 'cheque book' in system has been the duty of the OP2 bank and it exhibits 'deficiency in service'. 

5.       The complainant, on the strength of her assertions cum allegations as placed forth vide an affidavit and written arguments and as enumerated herein above, has filed the present complaint seeking directives to the titled opposite parties to pay the sum amount of the insurance claim Rs.3.40 Lac besides damages of to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% PA to meet the ends of justice.   

6.       Upon being summoned, the OP1 insurers appeared and filed the written reply through counsel with preliminary objections as: The complaint neither lies nor has been maintainable in the present form. The LIP, as claimed, was issued in the name of the deceased but was subsequently canceled when the premium-pay cheque was returned unpaid by the OP2 Bank with remarks 'cheque-book not entered in the system' and the dishonored cheque along with its return-memo were handed over to the concerned LIC agent.     

7.       Moreover, there was not sufficient balance in the drawer's account, as on the date of cheque. Further, Smt. Vandana the LIC Agent (Agency Code 27687-47-A) from whom the policy was negotiated has been the real sister of the DLI (Deceased Life Insured) and it was she to whom the cancellation letter & bounced cheque were delivered and cancellation of the LIC had been very much in her notice. Lastly, there's been no deficiency in service on their part and no cause of action has ever arisen against them. On merits, the OP1 insurers have responded the major issues on preliminarily chosen course taking refuge in either denial or non-reply to other subject-matters. Lastly, the OP1 insurers seeking dismissal of the present complaint have placed forth Affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of it's Manager Legal and other documents exhibited here as: Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 to finally close their evidence.               

8.       Similarly, the OP2 Bank upon summoning appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel preliminary objecting therein/addressing the present complaint as 'not-maintainable' in its present form against the Bank and has been time-barred besides being false and frivolous and unnecessarily dragging the bank into litigation. On merits, the OP2 Bank has again denied/rebutted all the imputations raised by the complainant in her complaint and has sought its dismissal with compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/- paid to them. In support of pleadings opposite party No.2 has placed on file affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh Jaggi Deputy Manager Ex.OP-2/A alongwith one document Ex.OP-2/1.

9.       We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as put-forth by the learned counsels representing their respective sides.

10.     We observe that there are many contestable/debatable issue-matters of fact comprised in the present complaint and the respective claims of the herein litigants that require voluminous evidence to be produced involving detailed examinations cum cross-examinations that are not feasible under the precise summary-procedure as prescribed under the herein applicable statute.      

11.     We therefore restrain ourselves to express any opinion on the merits/demerits of the present complaint and thus dispose it off as such but with liberty to the complainant to avail of any other legal remedy of her choice but proceeded in accordance with law and as per the established procedure, in law.           

12.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

 

 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

                                                         

ANNOUNCED:                                 (B.S.Matharu)

JULY 07, 2022.                                          Member.

YP.

 
 
[ Sh. Naveen Puri]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.