ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite parties by alleging that the husband of the complainant was enrolled in the Indian Army in Bombay Engineering Group on 25.2.2002. He was serving in the Army Engineering Regiment located and at posted in 107 Bikaner Military Station. He was drawing his salary through his Defence Salary Package Account (DSP Account) No 30747926620 opened at State Bank of India Branch Amritsar Road Tarn Taran (Pb), Branch Code No 11837 IFSC Code SBIN0011837. The Spouse/Next of Kin of the Soldier who was drawing his salary through this account was entitled for a Personal Accident Insurance amounting to Rupees Thirty Lakhs as per existing rules of the National Insurance Company. The husband of the complainant was allotted family quarter at his duty place i.e. Military Station Bikaner (Rajasthan) and while on duty he died due to electrocution on 2.6.2016 at approx 18.23 P.M. He was taken to Civil Hospital Bikaner where he was declared as dead. The deceased soldier left being his wife Komalpreet Kaur who was four months pregnant at that time and two minor daughters. The delivery of Smt Komalpreet Kaur took place in first week of Jan 2017. Twin children(One daughter and one son) were borne to her in her husband's house at Tarn Taran (Pb). The claim regarding the death of deceased Soldier i.e. Personal Accident Insurance Claim submitted to State Bank of India Branch Amritsar Road Tarn Taran (Pb) by opposite party No.4 Commanding Officer of the Unit 107 Engineering Regiment. CO 107 Engineer Regiment sent the said claim along with all the required documents to The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran (Pb) vide letter No 15569939W/329/VS/30/A dated 29.07.2016 through a representative of the unit and handed over these documents personally to the Branch Manager and receipt obtained on the ibid letter duly stamped by the Branch Manager alongwith his signatures thereon. The aforesaid personal accident insurance policy having Policy No. 251100/42/15/8200000090 having Policy period 4.1.2016 to 3.1.2017 is of opposite party No. 3 i.e. National Insurance Company but the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have neither paid the Personal Accident Claim nor informed the complainant about the same. During Jun 2021 Co of the husband of the complainant, has informed her regarding death/terminal benefits which were due to be paid to her vide their DO letter No. 15569939W/329/VS/110/A dated 24 Jun 2021 to opposite party No. 1 regarding the non-payment of Personal accident Insurance Claim by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. On 10.8.2021vide which they demanded the entire documents which were too after 5 years whereas the unit of husband of the complainant has already handed over all the requisite documents to opposite party No. 2 on 6.8.2016 for onward submission to opposite parties No. 1 and 3 for processing the PAI claim at the earliest. To the utter surprise of the complainant when she received a letter bearing No. PB/SPA/2021-22/97 dated 22.10.2021 raising the false plea that the opposite party No. 1 has not received the claim and wrongly stated that the claim was to be submitted directly and directed the complainant to contact the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No. 3 directly meaning thereby that the opposite party No. 1 wanted to get rid of from their legal obligation and duties. Husband of the complainant got the insurance through the opposite parties No.1 and 2 having branch office at Tarn Taran where the salary was credited in the account of husband of the complainant and bank itself got the Insurance of husband of the complainant and it is the duty of the bank to submit the claim of Insurance to the Insurance Company when the documents/claim was received by the bank. In the present case, the claim was submitted by the unit of husband of the complainant on 29.7.2016 and for more than 5 years, the opposite parties have kept the claim with them and have neither submitted to the Insurance Company nor informed the complainant to submit the claim directly to the Insurance Company. It was duty on the part of the opposite party No.1 and 2 either to submit the claim to Insurance company or to return the same to the complainant or unit of her husband informing to submit the claim directly but in this case, the opposite parties have not done anything and rather kept the claim documents with them without further process. The complainant being a household widowed lady having responsibility of her four minor children and she was not in a position to visit again and again to the opposite parties and she was not aware about the technicalities of law and after the death of her husband, the entire responsibility to maintain herself and her children in directly on the complainant and the opposite parties taking benefit of pathetic condition of the complainant had done this wrongful act. The unit of the husband of the complainant had obtained various signatures of the complainant on different claim papers as when any soldier is died, his legal heirs are awarded various terminal benefits and out of terminal benefits, the claim regarding the insurance company i.e. parties to the present complaint is also involved in the said list of terminal benefits. Even the plea raised by the opposite party No. 1 in letter No. PB/SPA/ 2021-22/97 dated 22.10.2021 is false one which is clear from the letter subsequently issued by the opposite party No. 2 on 12.11.2021 in which they taken another false plea that they have not received the claim documents. On one side the opposite party No. 1 is stating that the claim was to be submitted directly to the insurance company and on other side, opposite party No. 2 is stating that he has not received the claim documents for further process. The complainant was the aggrieved at the hands of the opposite parties and as such, she also served a legal notice dated 6.12.2021 through her counsel but nothing has been done needful by the opposite parties and failed to fulfill the requirements of the legal notice and as such, necessity has arisen to file the present complaint. The complainant claims following reliefs against the opposite parties:-
- Opposite Party be directed to pay the aforesaid claim amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum or more.
- Opposite party may be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for causing mental tension, agony, torture to the complainant.
- Opposite party may be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the insurance business as its business is confined to what is listed out in Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Bank’s role is only as a facilitator/ referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. opposite party No. 3. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant and the bank to claim the insurance from the bank i.e. this opposite party No. 1 and 2 and as such, the complaint cannot be filed against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and liable to be dismissed on this count only. It is settled principle of law U/s 230 of Indian Contract Act that an agent can neither sue nor be sued except under the special circumstances mentioned therein. The present complaint is badly time barred and has been filed after expiry of more than 6 years from the date of death of Varinder Singh without any explanation for the same. As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 limitation to file complaint is to file the complaint is 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Husband of the complainant was drawing salary through his account No. 30747926620 from OP No. 2. The opposite party No. 4 might have submitted a copy of the said documents to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for record as a copy of the same was also sent to complainant. As per rules which are in the knowledge of opposite party No. 4 also, the claim is to be submitted directly to the insurance company by claimant within 90 days of death of account holder. It was for the complainant to have filed her claim directly to the insurance company and the branch must have advised her about the procedure but the complainant failed to file the same. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are only corporate agent/ facilitator and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company and as such, the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is not maintainable. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the alleged insurance policy, if any. The alleged insurance policy, if any, does not relate to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, nor opposite parties No. 1 and 2 deal with the insurance business. The complainant has not explained as to why she kept quite for more than six years and did not pursue the said claim. The complaint being beyond limitation beyond limitation merits dismissal. There was no occasion for Opposite party No. 4 to have sent the said letter to the OP No. 2 as per rules the claim is to be submitted directly to the insurance company by the claimant within 90 days of death of account holder and the bank manager must have advised about the same and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit of Sh. Amritpal Singh Manager Ex. OP1, 2/1.
3 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant never approached the opposite party No. 3 nor opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 ever approached the opposite party No. 3 nor submitted any claim of death loss regarding the late Varinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of 7th Street Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Tarn Taran who was allegedly died on 2.6.2016 at 18.23 PM, as no death claim was ever reported by the complainant Komalpreet Kaur nor opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 with the opposite party No. 3 since the date of death up till today. The present case is time barred as the same is filed after more than 6 years of death of deceased Late Varinder Singh. The complainant party till today has not submitted a single document as alleged in the present complaint filed before this Commission neither any insurance policy related to present case nor any document related to the death of the deceased Varinder Singh was ever submitted with the opposite party No. 3 till today. When the complainant or other concerned opposite parties have not initiated any process regarding the present death case related to late Varinder Singh till today and now after passing away of more than 6 years, the opposite party No. 3 has been dragged in the present complaint case which is misuse and abuse of process and beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in the consumer Act, hence the present complaint case is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands. He is guilty of concealment of true and material facts as such he is not entitled to the relief claimed in the complainant. The complainant himself has concocted a false story and put forward wrong facts just in order to seek the present relief and further just in order to harass, humiliate the opposite party and further in order to gain monitory benefits. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record affidavit of Kanchan Bansal Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Division Office, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar Ex. OP3/1.
4 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 4 no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 4 and consequently, the opposite party No. 4 was proceeded against exparte.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and have carefully gone through the record.
6 In the present case, personal accident insurance policy having Policy No. 251100/42/15/8200000090 effective from 4.1.2016 to 3.1.2017 is issued to husband of complainant namely Varinder Singh who was serving in Army and was posted in 107 Engineering Regiment located at Bikaner Military Station which is quite clear from the letter 20.1.2016 which is part of Ex. C-3.
7 The case of the complainant is that while on duty husband of complainant died on 2.6.2016 due to electrocution. The claim regarding the death of deceased soldier i.e. Personal Accident Insurance claim submitted to State Bank of India Branch Amritsar road Tarn Taran by the opposite party No. 4 commanding officer of the unit 107 Engineering regiment who sent the claim alongwith all the requisite documents to the Branch Manager SBI Tarn Taran vide letter No. 1556993W/329/VS/30/A dated 29.7.2016 through representative of the unit who handed over the documents personally to the Branch Manager and receipt was obtained i.e. Ex. C-1. The complainant has placed on record letter Ex. C-1 which is written by Sh. Surender Singh Major Company Commander for Commanding officer addressed to Branch Manager SBI Amritsar Road Tarn Taran branch Code-11837 Tehsil Tarn Taran District Tarn Taran through which intimation regarding the death of Varinder Singh was given and documents have been supplied for processing the insurance claim. But the stand of the insurance company i.e. opposite party No. 3 is that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 3 nor opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 ever approached the opposite party No. 3 nor submitted any claim of death loss regarding the late Varinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of 7th Street Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Tarn Taran who was allegedly died on 2.6.2016 at 18.23 PM, as no death claim was ever reported by the complainant Komalpreet Kaur nor opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 with the opposite party No. 3 since the date of death up till today.
8 From the perusal of the file, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have placed on record any document i.e. repudiation letter which reveals that the claim of the complainant has been decided. Infact the claim has not been decided so far and the same is still pending. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents again and again and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant.
9 While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it.
10 In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents. However, the opposite party No. 3 has not mentioned in the written version that which documents are to be submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No. 3.
11 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the following directions
(a) The opposite party No. 3 will submit the list of requisite documents to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(b) The complainant will submit the claim with requisite documents to the opposite party No. 3-Insurance Company for deciding the claim within a period of further 15 days and on approaching the complainant for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite party No. 3 will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same.
(c) The opposite party No. 3 shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of 45 days therefrom.
In case of failure on the part of the opposite party No. 3, the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted. The complainant is a widow lady and is wandering for claim since a long time, therefore, the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 will help the complainant in procuring the documents, which are in their power/possession. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission
18.07.2024
