Haryana

Sonipat

112/2014

SMT. SURESH W/O JASWANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.,2. MAGMA FINCORP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DAYAL SINGH

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                  Complaint No.112 of 2014

Instituted on: 29.04.2014                                                      

Date of order: 24.11.2015

 

 

Smt. Suresh widow of Jaswant Singh r/o H.No.147, Ward no.2, Gali no.2, Devi Nagar, Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

1.M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Ins. Ltd. through its Manager, 7^th Floor, Kitak Infiniti, Building no.21, Infinity park, off W.E. Highway, General AK Vaidya Marg, Malad (EAST) Mumbai-400097 through its Branch Manager at Sonepat office vide policy certificate no.GA 000035-5009300, loan ID PG/0208/V 12/1272000.

2.Magma Fincorp Ltd.  through its Branch Manager at Sonepat vide loan a/c no.PG 0208-V-12-000033.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Dalel Singh Advocate for complainant.

            Mrs. Kamlesh Khatri, Adv. for respondent no.1.

            Sh. RS Garg, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

Before-     Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her husband Jaswant Singh during his life time got financed a truck for Rs.12,72,000/- on 15.1.2013. There is tie up between the respondent no.1 and 2.  The policy was made effective from 15.10.2013 after signing the documents.  Unfortunately, Jaswant Singh collapsed on 31.10.2013.  The representative of the respondents visited the complainant and obtained certain documents from the complainant.  But the respondent no.2 repudiated the death claim vide letter dated 31.3.2014 leveling false allegations of declaration of good health.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and illegal.  The respondent no.2 is trying hard to repossess the vehicle of the complainant, but he could not succeed in his evil design.  The respondents are jointly liable to compensate the complainant and the repudiation of the claim is wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement separately.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the information provided by the life assured in the declaration of good health form dated 15.10.2013 was false and incorrect and thus, the respondent no.1 was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant and it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 while doing so.  The life assured has died within 15 days from the date of commencement of the policy.  However, on humanitarian grounds has provided an amount of Rs.12943.58 paise towards surrender of the policy vide cheque no.867941 dated 31.3.2014.  From the evidence obtained during the investigation of the case, it appears that the deceased was suffering from Bronchial Asthma and Cardiomegaly prior to signing the DOGH.   The same was confirmed from the medical certificate dated 26.3.2014 provided by Dr SS Dahiya, MBBS MD wherein it is clearly mentioned that Pappu alias Jaswant was suffering from Bronchial Asthama with Cardiomegaly and taking treatment for the same w.e.f. 24.1.2012 till 25.5.2013. The deceased has concealed this very material fact from the respondent no.1 at the time of getting the insurance policy.  Thus, the respondent no.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that  inspite of repeated request made by the respondent no.2, the complainant never supplied the documents. The deceased Jaswant Singh has approached the respondent no.2 for taking commercial vehicle loan of Rs.12,72,000/- and to secure the loan amount, the respondent no.2 has taken single premium life insurance policy with total cover amount of Rs.12,72,000/- for the period from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2017 for which the borrower has also paid the premium of Rs.19909/-. The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 31.3.2014 has repudiated the claim and cheque of Rs.12943.58 paise towards the surrender value was sent to the respondent no.2.  The legal heirs of the deceased Jaswant Singh was using the financed vehicle, but are not paying the installments to the respondent no.2 and on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.671876/- is due and outstanding being defaulted amount and an amount of Rs.1632131/- is due being foreclosure.    The respondent no.2 has every right to take the financed vehicle if installment are not paid by the borrower.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.1 wrongly and illegally and only cause unnecessary harassment has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant, for which, she is entitled to.

          The complainant has tendered the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 in support of her case.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the information provided by the life assured in the declaration of good health form dated 15.10.2013 was false and incorrect and thus, the respondent no.1 was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant and it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 while doing so.  The life assured has died within 15 days from the date of commencement of the policy.  However, on humanitarian grounds has provided an amount of Rs.12943.58 paise towards surrender of the policy vide cheque no.867941 dated 31.3.2014.  From the evidence obtained during the investigation of the case, it appears that the deceased was suffering from Bronchial Asthma and Cardiomegaly prior to signing the DOGH.   The same was confirmed from the medical certificate dated 26.3.2014 provided by Dr SS Dahiya, MBBS MD wherein it is clearly mentioned that Pappu alias Jaswant was suffering from Bronchial Asthama with Cardiomegaly and taking treatment for the same w.e.f. 24.1.2012 till 25.5.2013. The deceased has concealed this very material fact from the respondent no.1 at the time of getting the insurance policy.  Thus, the respondent no.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

          The respondent no.1 has tendered the documents Annexure R1 to R6 in support of their case.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted that  inspite of repeated request made by the respondent no.2, the complainant never supplied the documents. The deceased Jaswant Singh has approached the respondent no.2 for taking commercial vehicle loan of Rs.12,72,000/- and to secure the loan amount, the respondent no.2 has taken single premium life insurance policy with total cover amount of Rs.12,72,000/- for the period from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2017 for which the borrower has also paid the premium of Rs.19909/-. The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 31.3.2014 has repudiated the claim and cheque of Rs.12943.58 paise towards the surrender value was sent to the respondent no.2.  The legal heirs of the deceased Jaswant Singh was using the financed vehicle, but are not paying the installments to the respondent no.2 and on 30.3.2015 an amount of Rs.671876/- is due and outstanding being defaulted amount and an amount of Rs.1632131/- is due being foreclosure.    The respondent no.2 has every right to take the financed vehicle if installment are not paid by the borrower.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          The respondent no.2 has tendered the documents Ex.OP2/A and Ex.OP2/B in support of their case.

          In the present case, it is an admitted fact that as per the respondent no.2, the deceased Jaswant Singh has approached the respondent no.2 for taking commercial vehicle loan of Rs.12,72,000/- and to secure the loan amount, the respondent no.2 has taken single premium life insurance policy with total cover amount of Rs.12,72,000/- for the period from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2017 for which the borrower has also paid the premium of Rs.19909/-. The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 31.3.2014 has repudiated the claim and cheque of Rs.12943.58 paise towards the surrender value was sent to the respondent no.2.

          As per the respondent no.1, the information provided by the life assured in the declaration of good health form dated 15.10.2013 was false and incorrect and thus, the respondent no.1 was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant and it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 while doing so.  The life assured has died within 15 days from the date of commencement of the policy.  However, on humanitarian grounds has provided an amount of Rs.12943.58 paise towards surrender of the policy vide cheque no.867941 dated 31.3.2014.  From the evidence obtained during the investigation of the case, it appears that the deceased was suffering from Bronchial Asthma and Cardiomegaly prior to signing the DOGH.

          We have perused the document Annexure R/2 very carefully.  In this document on the declaration, one Sandeep Kumar has put his signature mentioning therein that “I Sandeep Kumar have explained to the borrower the contents of this Forum in his own language”.

          Further we have perused the documents Annexure R/5 (containing pages 50 to 60 calculating back page also) very carefully.  But it is very strange that the complainant in her complaint or affidavit no where submitted that any prescription slip issued by Dahiya Medical Centre was submitted by any family member of the complainant to the respondent no.1, then how these prescription slips came into the contact of the respondent no.1. Further more, page 50, 55 and 59 bears the name of one Pappu and it bears no name of Jaswant. However, on the document Annexure R/5 at page no.52 and 57, the name of Jaswant is mentioned, but writing on page no.52 mentioning the name of Jaswant is different. Further on the document Annexure R/5 on page no.57, after making cutting on the name of Pappu, the name of Jaswant is mentioned.

          In the present case, the respondent no.2 has financed the vehicle in favour of the deceased Jaswant and to secure the repayment of the financed amount, the respondent no.2 obtained the policy from respondent no.1. So, at that time, there was no necessity on the part of the deceased Jaswant to issue any certificate regarding his good health.

          In our view, by taking such a plea that the information provided by the life assured in the declaration of good health form dated 15.10.2013 was false and incorrect ; the respondent no.1 cannot escape themselves from their legal liabilities. Prior to financing the vehicle for such a huge amount, it was mandatory on the part of the respondent no.1 to get medically check up the insured to clear their all doubts.  But in the present case, it is no where mentioned by the respondent no.1 that they ever got the life assured medically checked-up.  Since the life assured had now expired, the respondent no.1 has taken the baseless pleas that the information provided by the life assured in the declaration of good health form dated 15.10.2013 was false and incorrect and thus, the respondent no.1 was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

 

 

 

 In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent no.1.

           Now the question arises before this Forum is, who is entitled to get the said amount from the respondent no.1?

           In the present case, the vehicle was financed with the respondent no.2 and was insured with respondent no.1.  So, in our view, first entitlement to receive the amount is of the respondent no.2.   Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs.12,72,000/- to the complainant after deducting the payment of cheque Rs.12943/- if got encashed by the complainant, within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. The respondent no.1 is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and further to pay Rs.3000/- (Rs.three thousand) under the head of litigation expenses.  We also hereby direct the respondent no.1 first to clear the loan liability of the respondent no.2 and after doing so, if any excess amount is found, the same be paid to the complainant. 

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

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

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)   (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,   Member, DCDRF         President, DCDRF

Sonepat.         Sonepat.              Sonepat.

Announced 24.11.2015