DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.202/01.12.2008 Decided on : 20.05.2009 Sh. Buta Singh S/o Sh.Chota Singh S/o Sh.Nathu Singh resident of Village Makha Patti Khiala Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.The Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Khaila Kalan through its Secretary/President, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Adminisitrator, IFFCO House, Third Floor, 34, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110 019. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 exparte. Sh.Rajan Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. The instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Buta Singh son of Sh.Chota Singh, a resident of village Makha Patti Khiala Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa, against The Cooperative Agricultural Service Society of his village and IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for release of amount of insurance claim and Contd........2 : 2 : payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. , on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: 2. That Sh.Chota Singh, father of the complainant, was member of The Cooperative Agricultural Service Society of his village, who has expired on 7.11.2007. During his life time, the father of the complainant purchased bags of DAP from his Society i.e. Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No.00844 dated 17.10.2007 and bill No.2503 dated 30.10.2007. The above Society secured insurance cover for his members, including the father of the complainant, from Opposite Party No.2 i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, as per which, if any of its member, after purchase of fertilizers like DAP, Urea etc becomes the victim of accident and dies, then he was entitled, to payment of claim. As such, the father of the complainant was consumer under the opposite parties and complainant has stepped into his shoes. After demise of his father, the complainant lodged claim with Opposite Party No.2 alongwith requisite documents, but vide his office Memo dated 22.10.2008, the said claim has been repudiated on the plea that insurance policy was to come into force 31 days after purchasing the Fertilizers by any member of the Opposite Party No.1, although no such condition was laid at the time of issuance of insurance policy. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant because of which he has been subjected to mental and physical sufferings. Hence the complaint. 3. Notice of complaint was given to the opposite parties, but Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.1.2009, whereas Opposite Party No.2 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant is not consumer under the answering opposite party within the ambit of its definition given in the Act, because his father, as per his Contd........3 : 3 : own version, had purchased bags of DAP from Opposite Party No.1 on 17.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 and the insurance risk, as per its terms and conditions, was to commence after expiry of 30 days from the date of purchase; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because answering opposite party does not carry out his business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; that the complainant has neither disclosed the names of other legal heirs of his father, nor he has been nominated by his father and that complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it is submitted that answering opposite party had floated an insurance scheme known as Sankat Haran for the agriculturists who purchase fertilizers of IFFCO brand from Opposite Party No.1 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the same was to come in force on expiry of period of 30 days after purchasing of fertilizers like Urea, DAP, NPK and Potash etc by the members of Cooperative Society and Farmer Services Centre of IFFCO fertilizers. The insurance cover so provided for the benefit of the farmers produced by IFFCO was valid for a period of 12 months with effect from 31st day of purchase and maximum amount was payable at the rate of Rs.4000/- per bag to the victim to the extent of Rs.1 lac. It is also submitted that in the bill dated 17.10.2007 and 30.10.2007, relied upon by the complainant, name of the nominee has not been mentioned which is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The factum of death of father of the complainant on 7.11.2007 is not disputed, but it is reiterated that death of the father of the complainant has taken place before coming into force of insurance cover issued under Sankat Haran policy issued by the opposite parties. It is admitted that claim lodged by the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 22.10.2008 as the risk to life of father of the complainant was to commence after 30 days of the purchase of the fertilizers from the Society. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite Contd........4 : 4 : parties. It is also submitted that complainant is neither nominee of his father, nor there is any privity of answering opposite party. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ext. C-1 and copies of documents Ext. C-2 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Seth, Ext.OP-1, photocopies of letter dated 22.10.2008 Ext.OP-2 and insurance policy Ext. OP-3 and closed evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Before embarking upon the averments made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, we consider it appropriate to mention here that no role has been attributed by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 except that his deceased father had purchased bags of DAP produced by IFFCO fertilizers vide bills dated 17.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 from him. The factum of issuance of these bills Ext.C-3 and C-4 in the name of the father of the complainant, has not been disputed by Opposite Party No.2, along with the fact that he was member of OP No.1 Society. The claim lodged by the claimant was to be honoured, but has been repudiated by the Opposite Party No.2, who has also admitted the factum of issuance of insurance cover secured by Opposite Party No.1 for its members who opt to purchase fertilizers produced by IFFCO fertilizers through him. As such, in our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and complaint against him is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that factum of issuance of insurance cover to cover the risk Contd........5 : 5 : of death in accident of members of OP No.1 Society, if he has purchased fertilizers of particular brand is not disputed by Opposite Party No.2 and purchase of fertilizers by deceased father of the complainant in the capacity of member of OP No.1 Society, is proved by copy of bills produced on record by him. Learned counsel further argued that Opposite Party No.2 has also admitted the date of death of the father of the complainant and has not denied the purchase of fertilizer by him produced by IFFCO fertilizers but repudiation of the claim in illegal and arbitrary manner on the basis of death of the father of the complainant , which has taken place before coming into force of the policy. As such, deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 for which complainant, being legal heir of his father, is entitled to claim the amount payable under the policy and compensation and costs, as demanded in the complaint. 8. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 Sh.Rajan Singla, Advocate, has drawn our attention to clause 7 of policy as per which it was to come in force on 31st day of purchase of fertilizer produced by IFFCO Fertilizers. Learned counsel argued that death of the father of the complainant has taken place before expiry of 30 days after purchase of bags of fertilizers by him from OP No.1 Society, as such, complaint has been rightly repudiated by Opposite Party No.2. and Opposite Party No.2 has no liability to pay amount of any claim lodged by the complainant. Learned counsel urged that when terms of contract are reduced into writing, then parties are bound by the same. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2005(I) CLT (Supreme Court) 215 United India Insurance Co.Ltd versus M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that when policy is contract between the parties then both the parties are bound by the terms thereof. Learned counsel argued that in view of the facts of the case and law laid down in the authority referred above by the Apex Court, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and claim by the complainant Contd........6 : 6 : has been rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. 9. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, because Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy Ext.OP-3 provides that risk under the policy shall commence from 31st day of purchase of any brand of IFFCO fertilizers as mentioned in the cash receipt or debit Memo for a period of 12 months calculating from 31st day of issuance of these documents. The complainant has filed the instant complaint on the basis of bills issued in the name of his deceased father on 17.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 Ext.C-3 and C-4 for purchase of bags of Fertilizers of IFFCO brand from OP No.1 society in the capacity of its member. As per admitted facts, the father of the complainantf has expired on 7.11.2007 i.e. before expiry of period of 30 days from the date of purchase of fertilizer by him. As per the above clause policywas to come in force with effect from 16.11.2007 qua bill No.002503 Ext.C-3 and qua bill No.00844 Ext.C-4 w.e.f. 29.11.2007. The policy was secured by the Opposite Party No.1 for the benefit of its members covering risk to their lives after purchase of fertilizers produced by IFFCO Fertilizers. The legal heirs of father of the complainant including he, have derived right to file complaint through Opposite Party No.1. As such, they are also bound by the terms and conditions of the policy, even if, his father was not directly party to the policy. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that due to pre mature death of the father of the complainant, before coming into force of the insurance cover secured by the Opposite Party No.1, the claim has been rightly repudiated, by Opposite Party No.2, vide his office Memo dated 22.11.2008 Ext.C-2. 10. At the stage, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that there is no evidence to show that terms and conditions of the policy were read over and explained to the deceased father of the complainant, as such, inference cannot be drawn that he was conversant with them before the date of purchase of the fertilizers from OP No.1 Contd.......7 : 7 : Society. 11. We express our inability to accede to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant, because his father was merely beneficiary under the policy issued by Opposite Party No.2 in favour of Opposite Party No.1 Society. No such plea has been taken by Opposite Party No.1 either in the written version or by his counsel in course of argument. The terms and conditions are deemed to have been explained by the Insurance Company to the Society of father of the complainant. As such, said plea is not open to complainant and liability cannot be fastened upon Opposite Party No.2, against the terms and conditions of the policy, secured by Opposite Party No.1, for benefit of its members, who opt to purchase fertilizers of IFFCO brand. 12. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 on account of which indulgence of this Forum may be warranted, as sought by the complainant through the instant complaint. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint against both the opposite parties and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
