DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/371.

Date of Institution   : 23.05.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 01.08.2022.

1.Smt. Sumanpreet Kaur wife of Late S. Suba Singh resident of Village Nasar, P.O. Chamiri, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar.

2.Prabhjot Kaur aged 5 months daughter of Late S. Suba Singh resident of Village Nasar, P.O. Chamiri, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar through her natural guardian/next friend i.e. her mother Smt. Sumanpreet Kaur. 

3.Tarlok Singh son of Sh. Bahal Singh resident of Village Nasar P.O. Chamiri, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar.

4.Ranjit Kaur wife of S. Tarlok Singh resident of Village Nasar P.O. Chamiri, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar. 

                …Complainants Versus

1.Bank of Maharashtra having its branch office at M.M. Malviya Road, Amritsar through its Manager. 

2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., M.M. Malviya Road, above new Honda Showroom, Amritsar through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.     

                 …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended upto date. 

 

Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma Adv counsel for complainants.

Sh. Rohit Sharma Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. K.K. Thakur Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date against Bank of Maharashtra and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant No. 1 is the wife of the policy holder S. Suba Singh who had since died in a road accident and complainant No. 2 is the minor daughter of late S. Suba Singh and this complaint is being filed through natural guardian i.e. her mother and the complainant No. 3 is the father and complainant No. 4 is the mother of late S. Suba Singh. It is alleged that late Suba Singh was maintaining a saving bank account No. 60113398132 with the opposite party No. 1 and obtained one master policy from the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 bearing No. 1630004215P999990004 under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna for himself from 27.5.2017 to 31.5.2018 for sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid the premium amount of Rs. 12/- to the opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that during the policy period the complainant while going to his village on his motorcycle met with an accident near village Mukam and he died on the spot and the fact of accident was also got registered with the Police Station Ajnala vide diary No. 033 dated 18.8.2017 and information in this regard was also given to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 by the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants submitted all the documents with the opposite parties and requested to reimburse their claim. The opposite parties assured the complainants that all the documents have been sent to the Head Office and the complainants will be informed accordingly. But the opposite party vide email dated 19.4.2018 told the complainants that the claim had been repudiated by the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that “As per your mail dated 16.3.2018, the nominee has not done postmortem of the deceased Late Suba Singh neither he has panchnama and as per policy terms and conditions original death certificate, FIR/Panchnama and Postmortem report in original is compulsory, hence the claim is hereby rejected”. The complainants alleged that the claim has been repudiated on flimsy grounds and due to the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainants suffered mental agony and harassment and the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- being sum assured alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization. 

ii)To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 30,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version. It is admitted that the complainant was having a saving bank account with the opposite party No. 1 and was customer of the Bank having account No. 60113398132. It is also admitted that the complainant obtained one policy under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna for Rs. 2,00,000/- and the policy was issued by opposite party No. 2. On merits, it is submitted that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 has just acted as agent in procurement of policy and is not having any concern with the claim and prayed for the dismissal of complaint against answering opposite party. 

4. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts etc. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 denied the case of the complainants. It is submitted that the alleged account of the deceased with the opposite party No. 1, but the policy No. 1630004215P999990004 is denied. It is further alleged that the no documentary proof of any alleged accident has been produced and no FIR of the alleged accident is filed except one Daily diary report which can never be presumed authentic. Further, no postmortem of the body of the deceased is conducted which is necessary for establishing the cause of death of the deceased. No details of accident or any other vehicle with which the alleged accident took place is mentioned in the complaint. It is further alleged that these kind of complaints cannot be decided by this Commission and the matter comes under the purview of Motor Vehicle Act or under the Civil Courts. No documents have been received by the opposite party No. 2 from the opposite party No. 1. Thereafter, two letters dated 16.3.2018 and 19.4.2018 were sent but the opposite party No. 2 but no documents were received by the answering opposite party, as such the file of the claimant was closed and the claim of the claimant was repudiated on the genuine grounds. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In order to prove their case the complainants at the time of filing the present complaint filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

6. The opposite parties in order to rebut the case of the complainants filed documents at the time of filing written version i.e. O.P1W/A and Ex.O.P2/1 to Ex.O.P2/6.

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No. 2.

8. It is admitted case of the complainants that the deceased Suba Singh was maintaining a saving bank account No. 60113398132 with the opposite party No. 1 and obtained one master policy from the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 bearing No. 1630004215P999990004 under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna for himself from 27.5.2017 to 31.5.2018 for sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid the premium amount of Rs. 12/- to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Ex.C-1. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that during the policy period the complainant while going to his village on his motorcycle met with an accident near village Mukam and died on the spot and in this regard a complaint was registered with the Police Station Ajnala vide diary No. 033 dated 18.8.2017 i.e. Ex.C-2 and information in this regard was also given to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 by the complainants. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainants submitted all the documents with the opposite parties and requested to reimburse their claim and the opposite parties assured the complainants that all the documents have been sent to the Head Office and the complainants will be informed accordingly. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 2 vide email dated 19.4.2018 Ex.C-6 informed the complainants that the “claim is hereby rejected” and it is further mentioned in Ex.C-6 that the nominee has not done postmortem of the deceased Late Suba Singh. Neither he has panchnama. He has only a police complaint in which it is mentioned that Suba Singh has expired due to accident” and as per policy terms and conditions original death certificate, FIR/Panchnama and Postmortem report in original is compulsory. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that on the advice of relatives postmortem of the deceased Suba Singh was not conducted and on the basis of non-production of postmortem report or FIR the insurance company cannot be repudiated/rejected the insurance claim. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party No. 2 rejected the claim on flimsy grounds. 

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 argued that no documentary proof of any alleged accident has been produced by the complainants and no FIR of the alleged accident is filed except one Daily Diary report which can never be presumed authentic. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also argued that no postmortem of the body of the deceased is conducted which is necessary for establishing the cause of death of the deceased and no details of accident or any other vehicle with which the alleged accident took place is mentioned in the complaint. It is further argued that no documents have been received by the opposite party No. 2 from the opposite party No. 1, as such the claim of the claimant was closed.

10. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 also argued that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 has just acted as agent in procurement of policy and is not having any concern with the claim. 

11. Perusal of the record shows that the insurance company i.e. opposite party No. 2 has rejected the claim of the complainants on the grounds that no FIR of the alleged accident is filed on the record and no postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted which was necessary for establishing the cause of death of deceased and no details of accident or any other vehicle with which the alleged accident took place have been placed on record. The complainants to prove their case have placed on record copy of General Diary Details/DDR No. 033 dated 18.8.2017 Ex.C-2 which was registered by the family members, Sarpanch Rajinder Kaur and Namberdaar Dharminder Singh resident of Village Nasar, vide which it is mentioned that Suba Singh son of Sh. Tarlok Singh resident of Village Nasar was going on his motorcycle bearing No. PB-02-AH-8341 Hero Honda Spender met with an accident near Village Makam and died on the spot and for this accident nobody is responsible, so they do not want to proceed against anyone. The complainants have further placed on record copy of death certificate of deceased Suba Singh Ex.C-3. The complainant in order to prove their case have further placed on record Panchayatnama Ex.C-5 vide which the Gram Panchayat Nasar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar mentioned that Suba Singh son of Tarlok Singh resident of Village Nasar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar had died on 18.8.2017 due to accident and this document is duly signed by the Sarpanch and other Panchs of Gram Panchayat Village Nasar. The opposite party No. 2 failed to produce any evidence to rebut the above mentioned documents. 

12. Ld. Counsel for complainants also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh First Appeal No. 480 of 2018 in case titled Rachpal Kaur Vs State Bank of India & others, which was decided on 20.12.2018 in which the Hon'ble State Commission has discussed the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in case titled TDP Gram Sewa Sehkari Samiti Ltd., & Ors. Vs Charanjit Kaur 2011 (4) CPJ 390, wherein it is held that “We see no reason to differ with the concurrent finding on this and the technical objections such as not filing an FIR, absence of post-mortem report and not filing the claim within thirty days will not make much of a difference to the case of the complainants”.

13. In view of the above discussion and law laid down in the above noted judgments, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization to the complainants on account of insurance claim. The opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainants. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay all the above mentioned amounts to the complainants in equal share. The share of the complainant No. 2 Prabhjot Kaur will be deposited in the shape of a FDR in a Nationalized Bank till she attains the age of majority.  Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules.  File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       1st Day of August, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member