DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 73
Instituted on: 22.02.2017
Decided on: 23.06.2017
Ravi Kumar S/o Malkit Singh, resident of Ward No.8, Near Rao Dharmshala, Moonak, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit No.6-7, 3rd Floor, Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001 Punjab through its Regional Manager.
2. The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch Office Moonak, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
3. The Moonak Multipurpose Cooperative Agri. Service Society Ltd. Moonak Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.2 : Shri Rajnish Verma, Adv.
FOR OPP.PARTY No.3 : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Adv.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER BY:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Ravi Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the father of the complainant Shri Malkit Singh being the member of the society i.e. OP number 3 was insured with the OP number 1 for Rs.50,000/- under the policy number APG/11029455/P3/09/D5P314. The grievance of the complainant is that on 11.12.2012, Shri Malkit Singh (referred to as DLA in short) died due to slipping of his feet into Ghaggar river. The complainant being the legal heir intimated the Ops after the death of the DLA and submitted all the requirement documents including police report, post mortem report, affidavit, copy of KCC card, copy of voter card, copy of death certificate etc. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not settle the claim despite serving of legal notice upon the Ops on 18.1.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as claim amount under the policy along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time as the DLA died on 11.12.2012 and the present complaint has been filed in the month of March, 2017, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is denied that the DLA was insured with the OPs. However, it is submitted that the insurance was obtained by the Sangrur Central Co-opeative Bank Limited for its KCC account holders is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the payment of the premium of the respective account holder. It is stated further that when the complainant has not lodged any claim, then he is not liable to get any claim. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 has been denied.
3. In reply filed by OP No.2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is based on vague and frivolous averments and wrong facts, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the DLA had opened an account bearing number 531 where the complainant is shown to be the legal heir of Malkit Singh. It is admitted that the complainant had approached the bank, but he was told that the claim papers have already been sent to the insurance company. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.
4. In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the DLA was the member of the society and was insured under the policy in question for Rs.50,000/-. It is admitted that the complainant had submitted the listed documents and that the DLA died on 11.12.2012 and the same were submitted on 24.1.2013 and the same were sent without any delay for settling the claim.
5. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and Ex.Op1/2 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and Ex.Op2/2 to Ex.Op2/9 copies of the documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.
6. We have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply, as well as evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint deserves dismissal, for these reasons.
7. It is an admitted fact that the DLA was insured under the policy in question for Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death for the period from 1.10.2012 to 30.09.2013. It is further an admitted fact that the DLA died in an accidental death on 11.12.2012 during the subsistence of the insurance period, as is evident from the copy of the DDR, Ex.C-5. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 has not settled the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and should be dismissed as the DLA died on 11.12.2012 and the present complaint has been filed in the Month of March, 2017 after the lapse of four years of the alleged accident. The OP number 1 in its reply has clearly mentioned that the contract of the insurance between the respondent and complainant is governed by its policy terms and conditions and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held that courts are expected to give paramount important to the terms of insurance contract into between the parties – terms of insurance policy must be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of liability of the insurer” and further in one of the another case held that in a contract of insurance, rights and obligations are strictly governed by the policies of insurance. No exception or relaxation can be given on the ground of equity. The Hon’ble National Commission also held that the terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract. Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitute and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record that the complainant had lodged the claim within the stipulated period of two years as established under the Consumer Protection Act. It is worth mentioning here that the death of the DLA took place on 11.12.2012, whereas the complaint in hand has been filed only on 22.2.2017 after a period of about four years. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not approach this Forum or the opposite party earlier to get the claim. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time and deserves dismissal in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides that the complaint should be filed within a period of two years of arising of cause of action.
8. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Pronounced.
June 23, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
