BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: MEWAT AT NUH.
Consumer complaint No.13
Date of Institution: 01.10.2015
Date of Order: 28.10.2016
Rajjak Khan son of Shri Bucha Khan, resident of Village Kharkhari, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, General Insurance Company Limited, 7-8 Ground floor, Rajender Park, Pussa Road, Delhi-1100060.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at Tauru District Mewat.
-Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE Mr.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President.
Mrs.Urmil Beniwal, Member.
Mrs.Keeran Bala, Member.
Present: Mr.Mohd.Arif, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.Ajay Panchal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Garg, Adv.for opposite party No.2.
ORDER R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the brother of
the complainant namely Quam son of Bucha Khan opened a saving bank account in the bank of opposite party No.2 vide account No.33492975368 on 02.12.2013. It is alleged that at the time of opening the account, the opposite parties also got deposited Rs.100/- as premium inclusive service tax for insurance of the Quam under the scheme of Group Insurance vide Policy No.143820-0000-00 and opposite party No.2 insured Quam through opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.2 lac for a period of one year. It is alleged that his brother Quam died in a road accident on 05.12.2013 and the complainant being his nominee requested the opposite parties several times to pay him the insured amount of Rs.2 lac with interest under the above scheme but the opposite parties paid no heed to his requests and postpond the matter by making false excuses. A legal notice was also served on dated 17.02.2014 which was not responded.
2. Initially the complainant had filed the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat but that Court passed order to move Civil Court. Hence this complaint and by way of this complaint, the complainant prayed that opposite party may kindly be summoned and directed to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest.
3. On notices, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 filed reply taking the plea that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same has been filed by concealment of true and material facts. It is also submitted that the Personal Accident Policy has commenced from 10.12.2013 to 09.12.2014 and deceased has died on 05.12.2013. It is also submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as there was no privity of contract exist between the complainant and the
Insurance Company on 05.12.2013 and from the account statement of the deceased, it is clear that Rs.100/- was deducted on 10.12.2013 and after receipt of the premium from the account the answering respondent issued the Personal Group Accident Insurance Policy for the period from 10.12.2013 to 09.12.2014. The present complaint involves complicated questions of law and fact which requires elaborate evidence and the same is tried only before Civil and Criminal Courts. It is also submitted that earlier the complainant had filed an application before the Hon,ble Court of Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Nuh and the Hon,ble Court pleased to dismiss the claim application of the complainant, hence the same is not maintainable before this Hon,ble Forum in the present form. The present complaint filed by the complainant just to harass the answering respondent as there is no deficiency of services on the part of the answering respondent as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 also filed reply on the same factum stating that complaint is not maintainable being concealment of true facts. It is submitted that on the basis of concealment of fact before submitting the application of the said insurance policy on 10.12.2013 is a criminal conspire, hence the said complaint do not comes under CPA 1986. The earlier petition
(No.214 of 2014) of the complainant on same issue had already been dismissed as withdrawn by the competent Hon,ble Court on 11.07.2014 and repeated petition (No.906 of 2014) of the complainant on same issue once again dismissed as non-maintainable on 17.04.2015 under the provisions of THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ACT 1987. All other facts have been denied and prayed that the complaint against the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed with costs.
5. In evidence, complainant has produced the cash receipt mark C-1, copy of account statement mark C-2, copy of letter dated 11.12.2013 mark C-3, copy of postmortem report mark C-4, copy of order dated 17.04.2015 mark C-5, copy of FIR mark C-6, copy of identity card mark C-7 and copy of legal notice mark C-8 and closed the evidence on dated 22.07.2016. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the copy of application Ex.P-1, account statement Ex.P-2, insurance policy Ex.P-3, affidavit of Akhil Kulhari Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 20.02.2016 annexure-OP1, copy of letter dated 11.12.2013 annexure OP1/A, copy of terms and conditions of policy annexure OP2, copy of proposal form annexure OP3, copy of letter OP4, copy of claim summary annexure OP5 & OP6, copy of letter dated 12.03.2014 annexure OP7, copy of letter dated 27.03.2014 annexure OP8, copy of letter dated 11.04.2014 annexure OP9, copy of letter dated 19.01.2015 annexure OP10, copy of letter dated 03.02.2015 annexure OP11, copy of letter dated 18.02.2015 annexure OP12, copy of letter dated 09.03.2015 annexure OP13 and affidavit of Rajender Paul, Branch Manager Ex.RW2/A and closed the evidence vide orders dated 09.09.2016 & 30.09.2016.
6. After going through the evidence of both the parties, oral as well as documentary, one thing has emerged out which shall conclude the fate of this complaint. The complainant says that the deceased, Quam, deposited the proposal form Exhibit OP3 and authorization letter Exhibit OP4 on 2/12/2013. The complainant also claims in his complaint that the amount of Rs.100/- as premium of the insurance policy was also deposited on 02/12/2013 itself. To prove his averments, the complainant has placed on file Mark C-1, the deposit slip of SBI for Rs. 1200/- dated 02/12/2013; C-2, Bank Statement of the account of the deceased; Mark C-3, a letter and insurance policy issued by opposite party number 1 in the name of the deceased.
7. On the contrary, we have documentary as well as oral evidence of OP 1 and OP 2 along with their affidavits in evidence by both the respondents. Opposite party No. 1 has placed on record various documents which include policy and correspondence between
complainant and opposite party No.1 as well as the proposal and the authorization letter. It is not in dispute that deceased died on 05/12/2013 as is evident from Mark C6 and post mortem report Mark C4. The sole fate of this complaint is exhibit OP3 and OP4 that is the proposal form and the authorization letter to Opposite Party 2. As is visible, both these documents are received by Opposite Party No. 2 on 10/12/2013. The premium of Rs. 100/- is also deducted on 10/12/13 by Opposite Party No.2 as it is shown Mark C2. It is also pertinent to mention that exhibit OP3 is also dated 10/12/2013 besides the stamping of Opposite Party No.2 of the same date. So, the Opposite Party No. 1 could not have initiated the issuance of the policy and the insurance certificate prior to 10/12/13. Hence, there is no contract between the deceased and Opposite party No.1. Now the question for determination by the Forum is to the effect as to whether the said documents exhibit OP3 and OP4 were deposited on 02/12/13 or 10/12/2013 with opposite party No.2. The complainant has relied upon deposit slip Mark C1 and statement of account Mark C2 which do not come to the rescue of the complainant in any manner. The deposit slip proves only the factum of deposit of Rs.1200/- on 02/12/2013 with Opposite Party No.2. But Mark C2 bellies the claim of the complainant of deposit of Rs. 100/- as premium on 02/12/2013. In fact, Rs.100/- as premium has been debited by Opposite Party No. 2 from the account of deceased on 10/12/2013.The claim of Opposite Party No.2 seems to be correct that all these documents were given to Opposite Party No.2 on 10/12/2013 and not prior to that. However, this is a matter of investigation as to who brought these documents and deposited them with Opposite Party No.2 to which this Forum is not ceased of.
8. The deposition of the documents exhibit Op3 and Op4 on 10/12/2013 is meaningless when the alleged insured died on 05/12/2013. As such no liability can be fastened on Opposite Party No.1 as they received the premium of a person on 10/12/2013 for his insurance who did not exist on that date and the issuance of the insurance policy by Opposite Party No. 1 is a nullity.
In view of the above discussion, the complaint stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after doing needful. This order of the Forum is running into 7 pages in total and each and every page of this order has been signed.
Announced in open Court.
28.10.2016
(Urmil Beniwal) (Keeran Bala) (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
(Member) (Member) President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Nuh.
