This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”), questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 12.10.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”), in Complaint No.90 of 2011.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has accepted the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in rejecting his claim made by him under the PNB Home Protector Policy’s Personal Accident Cover.  Consequently, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant, the assured sum of ₹20,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment, as also costs of ₹10,000/-.

       Punjab National Bank (for short “the Bank”), Respondent No.2 in this Appeal, had obtained a Group Insurance Policy for its Home Loan Borrowers, which included the father of the Complainant, namely, Dharam Chand Wadhwa.  The Policy was for : (i) Standard Fire & Special Perils including earthquake in regard to the property and (ii) Personal Accident against death, permanent total disablement and loss of limbs, for assured sums of ₹20,00,000/- each.  The Policy was valid from 24.10.2005 to 23.10.2025.  Unfortunately, the insured, Late Dharam Chand Wadhwa, slipped from the stairs of his house and suffered head injuries, which ultimately led to his death in PGI at Chandigarh. 

The factum of the death of the insured is stated to have been intimated to the Bank, as also to the Insurance Company, by the Complainant vide his letters, both dated 31.12.2010.  However, except for the said communication, no other material is available on record to indicate as to when the claim under the Policy was preferred by the Complainant with the Bank or with the Insurance Company.  Nevertheless, sometime in the year 2011, he filed the Complaint against the Insurance Company and the Bank seeking a direction to both of them to pay an amount of ₹20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of actual realization and compensation amounting to ₹1,00,000/- on account of losses suffered by him due to deficient service on the part of the Insurance Company.

       The Complaint was contested by the Insurance Company.  However, the Bank was proceeded against ex parte.

       In the written version filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, the very maintainability of the Complaint was questioned by way of a preliminary objection, to the effect that as the Complainant had never approached the Insurance Company, seeking compensation under the Policy, there was no occasion for repudiation of the claim and, as such, question of any deficiency in service on its part did not arise, providing any cause to the Complainant to file the Complaint.  Similar averment was made while replying to Para-6 of the Complaint.  Ignoring the said objection, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint with the afore-noted directions.

       Hence the present Appeal.  Despite service of notice, the Bank remains unrepresented.

       Having heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and other documents on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 

Apart from the fact that the State Commission has glossed over the afore-noted preliminary objection raised by the Insurance Company to the very maintainability of the Complaint, it is evident from the impugned order that the State Commission did not bother to even enquire as to when the complainant had preferred the claim with the Insurance Company, in terms of the general conditions, stipulated in the Policy.  In our opinion, without addressing itself on the aforesaid objection and in the absence of any letter/communication, repudiating Complainant’s claim, the State Commission was not justified in adjudicating the claim on merits, on the basis of oral submissions.  In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Complaint needs to be considered afresh by the State Commission after due opportunity to the Insurance Company and the Complainant to put forth their respective stands.  In so far as the question of filing of additional documents is concerned, as prayed by counsel for the Complainant, we leave the issue to the discretion of the State Commission.

Since the case is being remanded for fresh decision, we refrain from commenting on the merits of the Complaint.

       Consequently, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.          The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

       Since the Appeal stands allowed, it would be open to the Insurance Company to withdraw the amount deposited by it in this Commission, in terms of order dated 31.1.2014, with accrued interest, if any.  However, the statutory amount shall stand transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

       Parties/counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.6.2016 for further proceedings.