BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 2013

Date of Institution: 14-03-2013

Date of Decision: 17-08-2015  

Smt.Jasbir Kaur widow of S.Sarabjit Singh, resident of House No. 177, Village: Kang, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran.

Complainant

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at  SCO 31, K.K.Tower, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer.
2. HDFC Bank Limited having its branch at Tarn Taran through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Vikram Puri, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.R.P.Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Jasbir Kaur  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that Sarabjit Singh  son of S.Jagir Singh husband of the complainant got financed motor cycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.PB-63-B-9048 from Opposite Party No.2-Bank with Rs.30,120/- payable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1206/-. Opposite Party No.2 who is having tie up with Opposite Party No.1got the  aforesaid financed vehicle insured with Opposite Party No.1 under Master Policy No. OG-08-9999-99600000005 known as Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum insured of Rs.50,000/- covering personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides  credit shield i.e. covering outstanding Loan amount which means in the event of death of policy holder, the outstanding loan amount at the time of his death, would be paid by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2. The gross premium to the tune of Rs.2120/- was duly paid by the husband of the complainant against the said insurance policy. Complainant alleges that Sarabjit Singh husband of the complainant accidentally died on 25.7.2009 due to drowning and the post mortem of his dead body was conducted on 26.7.2009 and in the post mortem report, the cause of death given is due to drowning which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the husband of the complainant died as a result of personal accident. News regarding the death of husband of the complainant was published in newspaper Ajit. The complainant widow of Sarabjit Singh  was not aware about the aforesaid risks covered under the insurance policy i.e. Personal accident risk as well as credit shield i.e. cover outstanding loan amount. The complainant after the death of her husband immediately intimated the Opposite Party No.2 regarding the accidental death of her husband, but the Opposite Party No.2 never apprised the complainant about the aforesaid risks covered funder the insurance policy obtained by her husband and the Opposite Party No.2 used to pay the equal monthly instalments to the Opposite Party No.2 bonafidely without having knowledge that after the death of her husband, it is the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to clear the outstanding amount and even to pay Rs.2 lacs on account of personal accidental benefit and she paid the instalments to the Opposite Party No.2 upto 7.1.2012, whereas the tenure of the equal monthly instalments is upto 15.1.2012. However, the complainant being a widow lady having no source of income to maintain herself and due to lack of funds, she could not pay certain instalments during the intervening period and the officials of the Opposite Party No.2 are putting constant pressure upon the complainant to clear the outstanding amount. A few days back while searching the old papers/ documents of her husband, the complainant laid her hands on the copy of the aforesaid insurance policy and from the perusal of the said insurance policy, it  transpired that she is not liable to pay any instalments to the Opposite Party No.2 after accidental death of her husband and it is the Opposite Party No.1 who is to clear the outstanding loan amount of Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant further came to know that she is also entitled to personal accidental death benefit of her husband to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. On coming to know about the aforesaid risks covered under the policy in question, the complainant alongwith her relatives, immediately rushed to Opposite Party No.1 and requested them not to raise any demand of alleged outstanding amount from her and rather to return the equal monthly instalments illegally recovered by them from the complainant after the death of  her husband and to receive the outstanding amount from Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.2 paid no heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties  to pay the claim amount of Rs.2 lacs i.e. personal accident benefit alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till payment;  to pay the outstanding loan amount after the death of her husband to the Opposite Party No.2 and to clear the loan amount; to return the entire  equal monthly installments to the complainant with interest which have been  recovered from her by Opposite Party No.2 after the death of her husband. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed being time barred as mentioned in the complaint the death of Sarabjit Singh husband of the complainant was caused on 25.7.2009 and till date, the complainant never lodged any claim with the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the complainant filed by the complainant is pre mature, time barred and without any cause of action. The complainant never lodged any complaint with Opposite Party No.1 nor any document has been provided. The policy is admitted to be issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to Sarabjit Singh under Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/- covering personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides credit shield i.e. it also covers outstanding loan amount. Moreover, the present complaint has been filed after four years from the date of occurrence, the Opposite Party No.1 was never given the opportunity to investigate the matter, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim as mentioned in the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2- Bank appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that no cause of action has ever accrued in favour of the complainant against the Opposite Party No.2-Bank. The present complaint is barred under the provisions of section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and she is guilty of suppression of material and true facts. At present foreclosure amount of Rs.26,016/- still stands due towards the complainant. It is the legal duty of legal heirs of Sarabjit Singh to pay the outstanding amount to the Opposite Party No.2-Bank. The complainant is not consumer of the Opposite Party No.2 and as such, she is not entitled to any relief from this Forum. All other averments made in the complaint are specifically denied. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sachin Ohri Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
6. Opposite Party No.2-Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, Assistant Manager Ex.OP2/1 alognwith documents Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that case of the complainant is that Sarabjit Singh  husband of the complainant got financed motor cycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration Certificate No.PB-63-B-9048 from Opposite Party No.2-Bank to the tune Rs.30,120/- payable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1206/-. Complainant further alleges that  Opposite Party No.2 having tie up with Opposite Party No.1, got the  aforesaid financed vehicle insured with Opposite Party No.1 under Master Policy No. OG-08-9999-99600000005 known as Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum insured of Rs.50,000/-. Said insured vehicle also covered personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides  credit shield i.e. covering outstanding Loan amount. Premium of Rs.2120/- was duly paid by the husband of the complainant against the said insurance policy.   Sarabjit Singh husband of the complainant died on 25.7.2009 due to drowning. The matter was reported to P.S.Sadar, Tarn Taran and they took action under section 174 CRPC, copy of said report is Ex.C3. Post mortem of his dead body was conducted on 26.7.2009, copy of the post mortem is Ex.C6 and in the post mortem report, the cause of death given is due to drowning which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Complainant submitted that Sarabjit Singh died as a result of  personal accident i.e. drowning.  Complainant further submitted that she being widow of policy holder Sarabjit Singh, was not aware about the aforesaid policy nor about the risk covered under the policy i.e. personal accident risk as well as  credit shield covering outstanding loan amount. The complainant after the death of her husband gave intimation to Opposite Party No.2-Bank regarding the death of her husband, but the Opposite Party No.2-Bank did not apprise the complainant about the aforesaid insurance policy and the risk covered funder the said policy and the complainant went on paying Equal Monthly Instalments to Opposite Party No.2 without having knowledge that after the death of her husband, it is the liability of the Opposite Party No.1 to clear the outstanding amount and even to pay Rs.2 lacs on account of personal accident benefit to the complainant. The complainant paid the instalments to Opposite Party No.2 upto 7.1.2012 whereas the tenure of Equal Monthly Instalments was upto 15.1.2012. However, she could not pay certain instalments during the intervening period and the officials of the Opposite Party No.2 are putting constant pressure upon the complainant to clear the outstanding amount. Complainant further alleges that   a few days back while searching the old papers/ documents of her husband, the complainant found the  copy of the aforesaid insurance policy and she came to know that she was not liable to pay any instalments to the Opposite Party No.2 of the aforesaid loan after accidental death of her husband as it was the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to clear the outstanding loan amount of Opposite Party No.2. Complainant also came to know  that she is  entitled to personal accidental death benefit of her husband to the tune of Rs.2 lacs from Opposite Party No.1. The complainant then  rushed to Opposite Party No.2 and requested them not to raise any demand of alleged outstanding amount from her and also requested to Opposite Party No.2 to return the amount of Equal Monthly Instalments allegedly recovered   by them from the complainant after the death of  her husband, but the  Opposite Party No.2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also visited Opposite Party No.1 and requested them to clear the outstanding loan amount and also to pay Rs.2 lacs on account of personal accident benefit due to death of Sarabjit Singh under the aforesaid insurance policy. Opposite Party No.1 also did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Therefore, the purpose and object of obtaining the insurance policy has been totally defeated by Opposite Parties.   Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the death of Sarabjit Singh  occurred on 25.7.2009 and since then, the complainant never lodged any claim with the Opposite Party No.1 nor gave any intimation regarding the death of Sarabjit Singh to Opposite Party No.1. The complaint is pre mature as well as time barred. The complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was required to lodge the claim immediately after the occurrence, but the complainant never lodged any claim to Opposite Party No.1. However Opposite Party No.1 admitted the policy under  Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/- covering personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides credit shield i.e. covers outstanding loan amount. Opposite Party No.1 was not aware about  the financing of the Motor Cycle by Opposite Party No.2-Bank. Opposite Party No.1 categorically submitted that the complainant never lodged any claim with the Opposite Party No.1. She had directly approached to this Forum and  that too after a lapse of period of 4 years from the date of occurrence. Opposite Party No.1 was never given the opportunity to investigate the matter nor Opposite Party No.1 could find out the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any claim as mentioned in the present complaint. The complainant never made any request nor made any representation to Opposite Party No.1 regarding making of payment of instalments i.e. outstanding amount to Opposite Party No.2-Bank nor made any request/ representation for the payment of Rs.2 lacs for personal accident cover. Opposite Party No.1 has been totally deprived to their rights to investigate and  find out the genuineness of the claim. The complainant without approaching Opposite Party No.1 has directly approached this Forum.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2-Bank is that Sarabjit Singh  got financed one Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.PB-63-B-9048 from Opposite Party No.2-Bank with Rs.30,120/- repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1206/-.  Opposite Party No.2-Bank denied for want of knowledge that the complainant got insured his vehicle under Master Policy No. OG-08-9999-99600000005 known as Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum insured of Rs.50,000/- covering personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides  credit shield i.e. covering outstanding Loan amount. Opposite Party No.2-Bank also denied that the premium of Rs.2120/- was duly paid by deceased Sarabjit Singh. Opposite Party No.2-Bank submitted that they have no knowledge about the death of Sarabjit Singh  on 25.7.2009 due to drowning or that any post mortem on the dead body of Sarabjit Singh was conducted or that news to this affect was published in newspaper. However, Opposite Party No.2- Bank dented that any intimation was given by the legal heirs of Sarabjit Singh  to Opposite Party No.2-Bank in writing and this fact for the first time came to the notice of Opposite Party No.2-Bank when they received copy of present complaint alongwith summons from this Fora.  Legal heirs of deceased Sarabjit Singh  were duty bound to inform the Opposite Parties  and to pay the remaining loan outstanding to Opposite Party No.2-Bank. Opposite Party No.2-Bank specifically denied that the complainant after the death of Sarabjit Singh immediately intimated to Opposite Party No.2 regarding the alleged accidental death of Sarabjit Singh. Complainant never apprised Opposite Party No.2 about the aforesaid risk covered under the insurance policy obtained by deceased Sarabjit Singh. Opposite Party No.2 Bank submitted that they had no knowledge that deceased Sarabjit Singh  has availed insurance policy from Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 was party to the insurance  contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1. So, Opposite Party No.2 was not bound by alleged insurance contract. Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that even if the deceased Sarabjit Singh  had any genuine and valid insurance cover, then in that eventuality also, there is liability of legal heirs of deceased Sarabjit Singh  to pay the outstanding loan amount or of Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company and the Opposite Party No.2 has a right to recover the loan amount in that eventuality also. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2-Bank qua the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 was never intimated about the death of Sarabjit Singh  loanee. Opposite Party No.2 is fully authorised under the law to take every legal recourse to recover the outstanding amount stands due towards Sarabjit Singh  loanee and after his death from his legal heirs. As such, the act of the Opposite Party No.2-Bank can not be termed as unlawful. Opposite Party No.2 further denied  that the complainant has paid  instalments upto 7.1.2012, rather the complainant herself admitted in her complaint that she could not make the payment of remaining instalments and some instalments were paid by the complainant late. As such, an amount of Rs.26,016/- is still outstanding against the complainant/ legal heirs of Sarabjit Singh  of that loan as per statement of account Ex.OP2/2 and Opposite Party No.2-Bank is entitled to recover this amount alongwith future interest from the complainant/ legal heirs of Sarabjit Singh.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Sarabjit Singh  got financed his motor cycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.PB-63-B-9048 from Opposite Party No.2-Bank to the tune of Rs.30,120/-. The said loan amount alongwith interest was  payable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1206/-.  It has also been proved on record that said financed vehicle was got insured with Opposite Party No.1 under Master Policy dated 31.1.2009 Ex.OP1/2 known as Suraksha Kavach for a period of 3 years from 31.1.2009 to 15.1.2012 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. Said policy also covered personal accident risk of Rs.2 lacs besides credit shield i.e. covers outstanding loan amount. Sarabjit Singh  expired on 25.7.2009 due to drowning. The matter was reported to the police and the police completed the report under section 174 CrPC, copy of which is Ex.C3. DDR to this effect is recorded, copy of which is Ex.C5. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted on 26.7.2009, copy of which is Ex.C6 in which the cause of death was mentioned due to drowning which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, neither the complainant nor any other legal heir of deceased Sarabjit Singh gave any intimation regarding the death of Sarabjit Singh to either of the Opposite Parties. Complainant stated that she informed the Opposite Party No.2-Bank, but Opposite Party No.2-Bank has categorically denied that  any intimation was given by the complainant or any of the legal heirs of deceased Sarabjit Singh; nor the complainant could produce any evidence to prove that she had given intimation regarding the death of her husband Sarabjit Singh as a result of drowning to either of the Opposite Parties. She could not produce any document in this regard. So, from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant has alleged that she came to know about  the policy in question a few days back before filing of the present complaint on 14.3.2013, but she never approached the Opposite Parties  nor she lodged any claim with Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company nor the complainant has filed any claim form or document concerning the death of Sarabjit Singh. So, no opportunity was given to Opposite Party No.1 to look into the claim case of the complainant whether in such circumstances, the claim of the complainant is payable by Opposite Party No.1. This fact is admitted by the ld.counsel for the complainant  that the complainant had never  lodged any claim nor filed any representation to Opposite Party No.1 regarding the claim of Sarabjit Singh  under the aforesaid policy. So, the present complaint is totally pre-mature and as such, right of the insured can not be determined under the policy unless the Opposite Party No.1 consider and decide the claim case of the complainant. So, Opposite Party No.1 requires opportunity to investigate and decide the claim case of the complainant, whether the same, at this stage, is payable or not under the terms and conditions of the policy.
12. Resultantly, the present complaint is not maintainable being pre-mature. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to lodge the claim i.e. to file the proper claim form alongwith all the relevant documents and submit the same, with Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company and the Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company in such eventuality is liable to decide the claim case of the complainant either way, within 2 months from the date of lodging of the claim by the complainant alongwith all the relevant documents. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 17-08-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member