Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/30/2020

Balwinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam and other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh N S Toor

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                             COMMISSION

                      FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

Complaint No.	:	CC/30 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	26/06/2020
Date of Decision	:	21/03/2023

 

 

Balwinder Singh aged about 36 years, son of Sh. Jaspal Singh son of Sh. Santa Singh, Resident of Village Dadheri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. (Being the LR of his deceased father Jaspal Singh)

                                                                                                                     …………....Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1.  Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Having its registered office at 2^nd Floor, DARA House, 2,N.S.C, Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Chairman/M.D.  

 

2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Having its Branch office at SCO10-11, 4^th Floor, Feroz Gandhi Market, Jila Kacheri Area, Model Gram, Ludhiana-141001 through its Branch Manager.

 

3.   Indusind Bank Ltd., having its branch at House no.444, Post office Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib-147301 through its Branch Manager. 

                                                                              ..………....... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 11,12& 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

Quorum

Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. N.S.Toor, counsel  for complainant.

     Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel   for OPs no.1 and 2.

    Sh. Lalit Gupta, counsel for OP no.3

 

Order By

 

 MS. SHIVANI BHARGAVA , MEMBER

 

 The  complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties) , Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 (old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay the remaining loan amount  against  account no.PG000342D  to OP no.3 regarding the Ashok Leyland  Truck no.PB-13-W-8179. To pay  Rs.4,26,630/- along with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for harassment and cost of the litigation  and  to direct OP no.3 to issue NOC of the above said vehicle to complainant.

1.   The  complainant  is a son/LR of deceased Jaspal Singh . His father  died on 21.1.2020.  The father of the complainant had Ashok Leyland Truck no.PB-13-W-8179 registered in his name.  The vehicle no..PB-13-W-8179 had been hypothecated with the OP no.3.The OP no.3 financed the above said vehicle for an amount of Rs.9,11,384/- ( Total payable amount is Rs.12,67,470/- alongwith interest)  through loan account no.PGo00342D on 8.3.2018. To secure the loan amount, OPs no.1 and 2  issued Chola Credit Linked  Group Personal Accident Insurance certificate no.2841/00233723/0019/000/00 valid  w.e.f  7.3.2018 to 6.3.2022.  The insured value of the said Policy  was Rs.10 Lac.  The premium of Rs.7,046/- was paid . As per the terms of policy, nominee of the said policy  is OP no.3 i.e Indusind Bank meaning thereby  if Jaspal Singh  dies then nominee Indusind Bank will get the claim from OPs no.1 and 2 to the extent of its remaining loan amount.  Father of  the complainant namely Jaspal Singh had paid loan  amount of Rs.8,08,911/- out of Rs.12,67,470/-  and as per the account statement of loan, outstanding amount is Rs.5,73,370/-  in January 2020 . On 21/1/2020, complainant’ father said  Jaspal Singh  died in  his sleep. Complainant called  Dr. Rajesh Sharma whose clinic is nearby  to check his father  and the Doctor told him that his father died due to  Cardiac arrest.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents  to the Ops no.1 and 2 to pay remaining  loan amount because loan amount was secured through Policy. But to no  avail. On 17.2.2020, the complainant through his counsel Sh.J.S.Jandu sent the legal notice. The OPs neither cleared the above said loan amount nor gave any reply to the same.  Hence this complaint.
2.        Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs  no.1 to 3 through registered Post OPs no.1 to 3 appeared through their Counsel  and filed  written version.
3.        The complaint has been contested by the OPs no.1 and 2 and filed written version , raising preliminary objections that father of  complainant  i. e Jaspal Singh  had obtained Chola Credit Linked Group  Personal Accident Insurance  certificate no.2841/00233723/0019/000/00/ w.e.f 7.3.2018 to 6.3.2022 for a sum of Rs.10 Lakh as accident death benefit as per terms and conditions of the Policy.  The OPs are in   business of General Insurance and as per Insurance Laws   is unable to cover the life of any person. The liability of the insurance company  is only on  account of death due to accident.  Jaspal Singh  died due to cardiac arrest.  Hence prayer, for dismissal of complaint has been made with cost.
4. The complaint has been contested by the OP no.3 and filed written version  raising preliminary objections that the complainant  does not come within the purview of definition of consumer.  This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merit it is averred that the  Policy in question was only a group personal accident insurance policy and as per terms and conditions of the policy,  the insurance company was liable to settle the claim  only if the concerned insured person died in a road accident or if he suffered permanent & partial disablement.   Admittedly, the death of the insured Jaspal  Singh  is not accidental rather  it was natural . He was suffering from heart disease and he died due to Cardiac Arrest.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim the covered amount. However without  prejudice to the foregoing submission, it is submitted that the OP no.3 is only  a financer. The OP no.3 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Legal representative of deceased Jaspal Singh has not cleared remaining loan amount,  so they are not entitled to claim no due certificate from OP no.3  Hence prayer, for dismissal of complaint has been made with cost.
5. The complainant in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his  affidavit ExCW1/A along with copies of  documents  i.e Ex.C1 Registration Certificate of vehicle in question , EX.C2 Insurance Policy Certificate, Ex.C3 Account statement of loan,  Ex.C4  death certificate, Ex.C5 certificate of doctor regarding the cause of death, Ex.C6 to Ex.C10 medical reports  , Ex.C11  Legal notice and Ex.C12 postal receipts.  In rebuttal  OPs no.1 and 2  tendered jointly  in evidence Ex.OP1/A  affidavit of Vidhi Passi , Legal officer of Insurance Company along with copies of documents. i.e  Policy with terms and conditions ExOP1. OP no.3 tendered in evidence Ex.OP3/A  affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, Legal Manager along with  copies of documents i.e   OP3/1Insurance certificate, Ex.OP3/2 account statement, EX.OP3/3 General Power of attorney and closed their evidence.
6. Heard. Entire record perused.
7. Admittedly complainant’ father Jaspal Singh (deceased) had taken a vehicle loan in his name  bearing  registration number PB-13-W-8179 vide Ex.C1. The  above said truck had been hypothecated with OP no.3 i.e Indusind bank. The OP no.3 financed the said truck for an amount of Rs.9,11,384/- (total payable amount is Rs.12,67,470/-/- along with interest)  through loan account no. PGO00342D on 8.3.2018 vide Ex.C3 . Insured i.e Jaspal Singh had paid the loan amount of Rs.8,08,911/- (Payment of the loan amount was secured  with the Ops no.1 and 2 through  Chola Credit Linked  Group Personal Accident Insurance certificate no.2841/00233723/0019/000/00 valid  w.e.f  7.3.2018 to 6.3.2022 for a sum of Rs.10 Lakh as accidental death benefit  vide Ex.C2). As per the terms of policy, nominee of the said policy  is OP no.3 i.e Indusind Bank the relationship of OP no.3 is of financer with the insured  meaning thereby  if Jaspal Singh  dies by accident then nominee Indusind Bank will get the claim from OPs no.1 and 2 to the extent of its remaining loan amount.   Insured died of cardiac arrest as per doctor report on 21.1.2020 vide Ex.C5.
8. OP3 argued that complainant is not a consumer under this act and this commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. It is admitted fact by the OP that complainant’ father was availing services of bank. Under section 2(42) of Consumer Protection  Act 2019, Banking comes under  definition of the service. It is settled  Principle of Law that the remedy under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy other than available remedies. Under Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Provisions of this act shall be in addition to  and not in derogation of the Provision of any other law  for the time being in force. 
9. Ld.  Counsel for the complainant submitted that heart attack is also an accident of life and therefore, death  by heart attack could be taken to be accidental death.  He submitted that  the complainant is entitled to the claim under the provision of  the workmen compensation Act. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the Judgment  by Karnataka  High Court  in National Insurance Co. Ltd  Vs   SMT RENUKAMMA & others.                                         

 Where in it has been held that deceased died due toheart attack during the course of employment while discharging job of driver. Hence thecontentionof insuranceCompany that it is natural death can not be accepted.

It is sufficeto say that we are not dealing with the liability under the workmen compensation Act . The Policy in questionis only a grouppersonal accident insurance Policy. As per the terms & conditions of the Policy,the insurance company is liable to settle the claim only if theconcerned person died in an accident or ifhe suffered permanentand partial disablement.

10.                  This  argument of the complainant was rebutted by the Ld. Counsel of OPs no.1 and 2. As per Policy’  terms and  conditions mentioned in Sec.2(A)(I)  of the Policy,  accident means sudden , unforeseen and  involuntary  event  caused by  external , visible  and violent means vide Ex.OP1.  In support of  its contention , OPs have placed reliance upon the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Alka  Shukla  Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Civil Appeal no.3413 of 2019.

   Where in it has been held that accidentmeansbodily injury by external/outward, violent & visible mean.

11.         We are of the opinion that interpretation placed on the terms of the  Insurance Policy  was manifested incorrect by the complainant. The insurance  cover was provided for accidental death benefit. In order to sustain a claim under accident benefit cover, it must be  established that the assured has sustained a bodily injury which resulted solely & directly from the accident. Injury must be the cause of death. Medical reports clearly shows that death of the insured was due to cardiac arrest in his sleep.

As a corollary of our above discussion,the present complaint fails and the same is here by dismissed with no order as to cost. Complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be consigned to record Room.

 Pronounced 21 March 2023

                                                           

                                                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                              President

                                                                    

    

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

 

                                                                              ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                                 Member