Jagdish Kaur filed a consumer case on 12 Mar 2019 against Central Cooperative Bank in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/17/357 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Apr 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 357 of 2017
Date of Institution: 1.11.2017
Date of Decision : 12.03.2019
(through their mother and natural guardian Jagdish Kaur wife of Simerjit Singh.)
...Complainants
Versus
......OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
cc no.- 357 of 2017
Present: Sh R S Romana, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of Simerjit Singh and for further directing them to pay Rs. One lac as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that late Simerjit Singh predecessor in interest of complainants had a saving account bearing no.031634028000113 in the bank of OPs at Panj Grain Kalan and he was insured under Co-operative Bank Insurance Plan Saving Scheme. It is submitted that Simerjit Singh died on 11.04.2016 due to falling from motorcycle and due intimation regarding his death was given to OPs, but they have not made payment of insurance claim. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times, but despite her repeated requests, OPs have not paid a single penny on account of insurance of Simerjit Singh. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
cc no.- 357 of 2017
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement taking preliminary objections that IFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd is a necessary party, but complainants have not impleaded the same and therefore, complaint is not liable in present form. It is averred that as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the account holder or his LRs are entitled for the claim in case of road accident, fire, floods, snake bite and electricity current, but in present case Simerjit Singh has not died in any road accident. in case of accidental deaths, documents like Police Report, post mortem report are essential to be submitted, but complainant has not submitted any such document. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that as per complainant, her husband died due to falling from motorcycle and as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, she is not entitled to seek compensation for death on account of falling. It is further submitted that Ifco Tokio had sought Post Mortem Report, copy of FIR, Discharge Voucher and account statement from them on 6.07.2016 and vide letter dated 8.07.2016 they immediately asked complainant to provide the same. On 14.10.2016, Ifco Tokio repudiated the claim of complainant
cc no.- 357 of 2017
which was also conveyed to complainant when she visited OP-2. It is further averred that they have no role in making payment of insurance claim and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed. it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Manjeet Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
8 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that her husband was insured with Ops and he died on falling from motorcycle. She gave due intimation regarding his death to OPs and requested them to pay the insurance claim on account of death of her
cc no.- 357 of 2017
husband, but till now, OPs have not made single penny despite her repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that insurance claim of complainant is repudiated by Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company which is not made party in present complaint by complainant. Husband of complainant was insured with Ifco Toko General Insurance and on receiving the intimation regarding death of her husband from complainant, Ops immediately reported the same to Ifco Tokio and they required documents like Post Mortem Report, copy of FIR, Discharge Voucher and Account Statement from them vide their letter dated 6.07.2016 and OPs immediately conveyed the said requirement of documents to complainants vide letter dated 8.07.2016 and after that claim of complainants was repudiated by IFCO TOKIO on 14.10.2016 and intimation regarding this was also conveyed to complainants. It is observed that matter in dispute is that complainants have not got the insurance claim on account of death Simarjit Singh. From the careful perusal of record and pleadings and arguments put forward by Ops it is made out that OPs have no role in making payment of insurance claim. Insurance claim is required to be given by IFCO TOKIO which is not part in present complaint and relief cannot be provided against anyone unless same has not been made party. Further, complainant has not placed on record any document showing that death of Simarjit Singh is accidental and occurred due to falling from motorcycle and there is no post mortem report on record to clear this point. No discharge voucher or
cc no.- 357 of 2017
copy of FIR is brought before the Forum that may prove that death of Simerjit Singh husband of complainant occurred due to falling from motorcycle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
9 From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, this Forum is of considered opinion that no deficiency in service is made out on the part of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand stands hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 12.03.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.