DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint No : 630/2015.
Date of Institution : 18.09.2015.
Date of Decision : 27.6.2016
1. Sukhdeep Kaur aged 40 years wife of Late S. Sarmukh Singh son of Gurnam Singh.
2. Gurpeet Singh aged 20 years son of Late S. Sarmukh Singh son of Gurnam Singh.
Both residents of Thikriwala Road, Near Kala Mahar Stadium Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainants
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor DARE House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Limited, Branch Barnala through its Branch Manager C/o Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Limited Handiaya Bazaar, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai through its Managing Director and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Limited Branch Barnala through its Branch Manager (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant No. 1 is wife and complainant No. 2 is son of late S. Sarmukh Singh. Ramanjot Kaur aged 22 years is daughter of late S. Sarmukh Singh and she is married and is residing abroad and she could not join with the complainants, but the complaint is for her benefit as well. Mother of Sarmukh Singh predeceased him and as such there is no other legal heir of Sarmukh Singh since deceased.
3. It is alleged that deceased Sarmukh Singh son of Gurnam Singh had purchased commercial Vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. PB-19C-7805 for earning his livelihood and for good future for his family and the said Sarmukh Singh had availed a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/-. At the time of disbursement of loan, opposite parties had insured him for Rs. 3,00,000/- vide certificate of insurance bearing No. 2841/00112143/0048/000/00 and the said policy was valid from 23.10.2013 to 22.10.2016 and opposite parties charged Rs. 1,650/- as premium.
4. It was alleged that Sarmukh Singh had gone to Panipat with his Truck on 30.3.2015 alongwith Paramjit Singh. He parked the Truck on the side of the road and went to give answer to the call of nature early in the morning in the fields and was bitten by a snake in the dark and later on died due to Snake bite. Then the complainant No. 1 informed the opposite party No. 2 regarding the death of her husband in the aforesaid accident and lodged the claim and supplied all the requisite documents to the opposite party No. 2 including the copy of the insurance agreement, death certificate of her husband and other documents as demanded by the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 obtained the signature of complainant No. 1 on some blank printed papers and assured that the case would be sent to the Head Office and on receipt of sanction, the payment of the insurance claim would be made to them. Thereafter, the complainant No. 1 visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 many times but in vain. It is alleged that the opposite parties have been harassing the complainants and putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Then the complainants sent a legal notice dated 19.8.2015 to the opposite parties asking them to make the payment of claim but the opposite parties did not bother to respond the above said notice. It is further alleged that the above said act and conduct of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainants and it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainants.
To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainants
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of proceedings.
Any other amount to which the complainants are found entitled to.
Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.8.2015 when the complainants sent legal notice to the opposite parties.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the ground that the present complaint cannot be decided as complicated questions of law and facts are involved and appropriate remedy if any lies only in the Civil Courts. Secondly, the complainants have concealed material facts and documents from this Forum as the complainants did not lodge any claim with the opposite parties and the complaint is premature. Thirdly, the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim has to be lodged within prescribed period from the date of alleged loss but no claim has been lodged with the opposite parties till date. Fourthly, the complainants have no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present complaint and lastly the complainants have not impleaded all the legal heirs of deceased Sarmukh Singh.
6. On merits it is pleaded that the insurance policy was a group personal accident insurance policy and sum assured is payable only in case of accidental death and not in all cases. Moreover, the said policy is subjected to terms and conditions regarding its genuineness and payment of premium. It is further pleaded that death due to snake bite as alleged by the complainants is not an accidental death. Moreover, no claim or documents have supplied by the complainants to the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that they reserve their right to decide the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy as and when any claim is lodged. They have denied the other allegations of the complainants and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint that the complainants may be directed to submit the claim alongwith documents, so that the same may be decided as per terms and conditions of the policy.
7. In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No. 1 Ex.C-1, affidavit of Paramjit Singh Ex.C-2, copy of death certificate of Sarmukh Singh Ex.C-3, certificate of insurance policy Ex.C-4, copy of notice 24.7.2015 Ex.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, copy of RTD letter Ex.C-8, copy of death certificate Ex.C-9, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-10, copy of Form No. 35 Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.
8. In order to rebut the case of complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Shubhanshu Jain Ex.O.P-1.2/1 and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Forum dated 10.3.2016.
9. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
10. In order to prove their case the complainants have placed on record affidavit of Sukhdeep Kaur Ex.C-1 alleged to be the wife of the deceased and Paramjit Singh Ex.C-2 who have reiterated their case as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C-3 is the death certificate of Sarmukh Singh and date of death is mentioned as 30.3.2015 and place of death is mentioned as Barnala. Ex.C-4 is the certificate of insurance of Sarmukh Singh for the period 23.10.2013 to 22.10.2016 against the premium of Rs. 1,650/- and it was a Group Personal Accidental Policy. It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the deceased Sarmukh Singh had gone to Panipat with his truck on 30.3.2015 alongwith Paramjit Singh where in the early morning in the fields said Sarmukh Singh was bitten by a snake in the dark and the said Sarmukh Singh died due to snake bite. It is further contended that the death due to snake bite comes within the ambit of the accidental death and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e complainants are entitle to the insurance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest.
11. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that the present complaint is premature. The complainants have not lodged any claim qua the alleged occurrence nor any document has been furnished by them so as to verify the claim. It is also contended that both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainants have since not lodged any claim with them within the stipulated period from the date of the accident and therefore, the claim has not been investigated and the complainants are not entitle to any alleged insurance amount.
12. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, there is no document on the record to show that the complainants have ever approached the opposite parties alongwith the requisite documents for releasing the insurance amount. Even, there is no correspondence or document or any cogent evidence to show that the complainants have given the documents to the opposite parties which are material for assessing the claim of the complainants.
13. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that without documents and without intimation of the occurrence it was not possible to appoint the surveyor for assessing the genuineness of the claim as in this case the accidental death is alleged to be due to snake bite. Even, the complainants have not placed on record any certificate of the doctor or postmortem report or any document to indicate that the death of the Sarmukh Singh was caused due to snake bite. It was, therefore, contended that firstly the complainants should be directed to lodge their claim alongwith documents to the opposite parties and at this stage the complaint is premature.
14. As a result of the above discussion present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainants to lodge their claim with the opposite parties alongwith the documents within 30 days and thereafter the opposite parties are directed to decide the claim within three months. It is also held that in case the complainants are not satisfy with the order of the opposite parties regarding the claim amount then they are at liberty to file a fresh complaint. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
27th Day of June, 2016.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
