<br /> DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM,BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 94 of 2-4-2009<br /> Decided on : 4-9-2009<br /> <br /> 1.Nischal Rani widow of Shri Parmod Kumar S/o Sh. Shivji Ram, aged about 42 years.<br /> 2.Sandeep Singla, aged about 20 years, sons of Sh. Parmod Kumar.<br /> 3.Mandeep Singla, aged about 19 years son of Sh. Shivji Ram,<br /> -all residents of Ward No.7, Railway Road, near Hotel Shivji Singh, <br /> Maur Mandi, Teh, Talwandi Sabo, Distt.Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .........Complainants.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda, through its<br /> General Manager.<br /> 2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg,<br /> Opposite Bank of Baroda, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager;<br /> 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Regional office 6th<br /> Floor, SCO 137, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager;<br /> <br /> ........Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of <br /> the Consumer Protection Act,1986. <br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the complainants : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for the complainants. <br /> For the opposite parties: Sh. Sanjay Goyal,counsel for the opposite <br /> parties No. 2 & 3.<br /> : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the <br /> opposite party No.1.<br /> QUORUM <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1.The present complaint has been filed by the complainants who are legal heirs of deceased Sh. Parmod Kumar. Sh. Parmod Kumar was a sole Proprietor of Sandeep Trading Company, Maur Mandi and he obtained telephone connection No. 232147 from opposite party No.1 with Insurance Cover of Rs. 50,000/- in case of accidental death or permanent total disability due to accident of the subscriber. The Insurance policy was obtained by the opposite party No. 1 from opposite parties No. 2&3 for the benefit of the subscribers. The opposite parties did not issue any Insurance policy/ documents to deceased Parmod Kumar nor disclosed any terms and conditions thereof. On 22-05-2008, the deceased Parmod Kumar met with an accident while he was driving motor cycle at Kotli Kalan, he suffered serious injuries and he was referred to D.M.C., Ludhiana. Parmod Kumar, ultimately died on 29-05-2008.The matter was reported to Police Station Sadar,Mansa. The complainants being the legal heirs were entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- against above referred Insurance Policy on account of accidental death of Parmod Kumar and therefore, the claim was lodged with the opposite parties. The opposite parties assured the complainants that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will soon be released to them. However, their claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter dt. 2-9-2008 on the ground that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bill is in the name of Sandeep Trading Company not Parmod Kumar. The complainants assert that the repudiation letter is totally illegal and is not binding upon the rights of the complainants. The opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants against the policy of Sh. Parmod Kumar alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- for the physical, mental tension, harassment, and inconvenience, they have suffered. They are also entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> <br /> 2.Opposite parties contested the allegations that opposite party No.2&3 are liable for the settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 and claim is not tenable as per conditions because the connection was in the name of Sandeep Trading Company and not in the name of deceased Parmod Kumar. <br /> <br /> 3.Opposite parties 2&3 contested the allegations on the ground that complainants have no cause of action and that the allegation of deficiency in service is false and baseless as the opposite parties 2&3 has acted as per the policy terms and conditions and the coverage opted by the insured i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. On merits also,it has been pleaded that this telephone connection was not under the said insurance scheme so the complainants are not entitled for any claim. The other telephone was installed in the individual name of Sh. Parmod Kumar,deceased against which the payment of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the complainants. The opposite parties never assured the complainants that the payment will be released in respect of their telephone connection and therefore, complainants are not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4.In order to prove respective assertions, both the parties have led evidence. The complainants brought on the record, affidavit of the Sandeep Singla Ex.C-1; photo copy of death report of Parmod Kumar Ex.C-2; photo copy of DDR No.18 Ex.C-3; photo copy of Post Mortem Report Ex.C-4;photo copy of BSNL Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme Ex.C-5; Legal Notice Ex.C-6; photo copies of postal receipts Ex.C-7 and C-8; photo copies of bills dt. 5-6-2007 & 5-8-2008 Ex.C- 9 & Ex.C-12; photo copy of Income Tax Return of Sh. Parmod Kumar Ex.C-10 and photo copy of Repudiation Insurance Claim Ex.C-11. <br /> <br /> 5.To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties brought on the record, affidavit of Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Deputy Manager Ex.R-1;photo copy of Repudiation Letter dt. 2-9-2008 Ex.R-2; photo copies of bills Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-5; photo copies of Cheques dt. 30-5-2009 and 10-10-2008 Ex.R-4 and Ex.6 and also brought on record in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Harnek Singh, D.E.P.(Legal) Ex.R-7; photo copy of Demand Note Ex.R-8; photo copy of Application for telephone connection Ex.R-9; photo copy of Letter dt. 10-1-2008 Ex.R-10; photo copy of telephone bill Ex.R-11 and photo copy of policy schedule Ex.R-12.<br /> <br /> 6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully. It appears from the arguments of counsel for both the parties and record of the case that there is no dispute about the Insurance policy of deceased Parmod Kumar and also about his accidental death. The claim of the complainants is that deceased Parmod Kumar was a sole Proprietor of Sandeep Trading Company, Maur who has obtained telephone connection no. 232147 from opposite party No.1 with insurance cover of Rs. 50,000/- against accidental death or total permanent disability due to accident of the subscriber. The policy terms and conditions are not in dispute. According to the opposite parties, the telephone connection was not released to deceased Parmod Kumar rather it was issued to Sandeep Trading Company as per bills Ex.C-9 and C-12. It is also contended on behalf of opposite parties that claim of the complainants was repudiated vide letter dt. 2-9-2008 Ex.C-11 on the ground that “The B.S.N.L. bill submitted states the name of the subscriber as Sandeep Trading Company and not Parmod Kumar (the deceased person), whereas the policy is valid only if the B.S.N.L. bill is in the name of the deceased.” It has been further contended that as per General Denial Clause 18 which excludes the claim does not cover, the claim of the complainants is inadmissible, thus repudiated.<br /> <br /> 7.It appears that the claim has been rejected by opposite parties. Bills were submitted by the complainants i.e. Ex.C-9 and C-12 which shows name of the subscriber as “Sandeep Trading Company “and not “Mr. Parmod Kumar”, whereas, the policy is valid only for B.S.N.L. subscribers. The perusal of Ex.R-9 i.e. application form for telephone connection and demand note Ex.R-8 reveal that Parmod Kumar deceased obtained a telephone connection under the BSNL insurance policy scheme as Proprietor of Sandeep Trading Company, Maur.The demand note Ex.R-8 was also issued by opposite party No. 1 in the name of Parmod Kumar, Proprietor of Sandeep Trading Company. However, opposite party No.1, issued the bills in the name of “Sandeep Trading Company”, Proprietor Parmod Kumar,i.e. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-12. The telephone connection was applied by Parmod Kumar as Proprietor of “Sandeep Trading Company” and demand note was also issued to Parmod Kumar as Proprietor Sandeep Trading Company. How the telephone bills Ex.C-9 and C-12 were issued in the name of Sandeep Trading Company instead of Proprietor Parmod, Sandeep Trading Company Kumar, it was due to the fault of opposite party No. 1. The legal and genuine claim of the complainants cannot be withheld either by opposite party No.1 or opposite parties No.2&3. The exclusion clause 3.4 given in Ex.C-5 that this scheme is not applicable for subscribers who have taken connection under the category of Government, PSU, Corporate customers, NGOs, PCOs etc. and general denial clause 18 has been mentioned in Ex.C-11 which reads as under:-<br /> “For the BSNL Personal Accident Policy,only distinctively identifiable individuals shall be benefited. Connections under any other category shall not be under the purview of the policy.” This clause does not apply in the facts and circumstances has been discussed have-in-above.<br /> <br /> 8.The record also reveals that another similar telephone connection where deceased Parmod Kumar obtained a connection under the same scheme as proprietor of M/s. Shiv Sambhod. The claim was honoured for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.However, in the present case, the claim has been denied simply because opposite party No.1 issued telephone bill not in the name of Parmod Kumar, Proprietor of Sandeep Trading Company, but in the name of “Sandeep Trading Company”prop. Parmod Kumar. The mistake if any, appears to have committed at the end of opposite party No.1 while preparing telephone bills and not at the end of the deceased Parmod Kumar. He applied for the connection as per Ex.R-9 in the name of Parmod Kumar, Proprietor Sandeep Trading Company and demand note Ex.R-8 issued to him in the name of Parmod Kumar, Proprietor Sandeep Trading Company. The repudiation claim of the complainants appears to be totally illegal and untenable and is liable to be set aside.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result, the complaint is accepted against the opposite parties and opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000/- against telephone connection no.232147 for release of their claim along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from Ist September 2008 (i.e. after 3 months of the death of Sh. Parmod Kumar) till the amount is finally paid. The complainants are also entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience,they had to suffer on account of repudiation of their legal and tenable claim of insurance by opposite parties. Complainants are also entitled to the cost of the litigation to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. An amount referred to above is apportioned amongor complainants of the extent of 50% to complainant No.1 and 25% each to complainants No.2 and 3. <br /> <br /> 10.The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> 11.The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 4-9-2009 PRESIDENT<br /> /<br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />