DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 135 of 2018
Date of Institution: 8.08.2018
Date of Decision : 11.06.2019
- Naminder Kaur, aged about 56 years, w/o Gurdeepinder Singh Sethi.
- Navinder Singh aged about 25 s/o Gurdeepinder Singh Sethi.
Both residents of House No.B-XI-167, Street No. 6 (L), Dogar Basti, Faridkot.
....Complainant
Versus
- Hero Good Life Program Centre Result Services Pvt. Ltd & Balaji Estate, Guru Ravi Dass Marg, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110099 through its Managing Director. (Proforma Party).
- Hero Motocorp Ltd., 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, through its Managing Director (Proforma Party).
- Farid Hero (Automobile Division) Ferozepur Road, Faridkot-151203, through its Proprietor.
- National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office XXXIII, LTG Building, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
.............OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
cc no.-135 of 2018
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for Complainant,
Sh Satnam Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2,
Sh Sukhjinder Singh on behalf of 3,
Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-4,
OP-1 Exparte.
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 of Rs. one lac with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant no.1 is the wife and complainant no.2 is the son of deceased Gurdeepinder Singh. The grievance of the complainant is that Gurdeepinder Singh purchased a Hero Splendor Motorcycle from OP-3 where Gurdeepinder Singh was issued Group Personal Accident Policy and he was insured under Hero Good Life Programme. On 28.02.2004, husband of complainant Gurdeepinder Singh while going on his motorcycle to bring his son from school, did not return back. It came to the knowledge that he fell into Rajasthan
cc no.-135 of 2018
Canal alongwith his motorcycle suddenly in order to save himself from some stray cattle. DDR No.25 dated 28.02.2004 was got recorded by Tejinder Singh brother of Gurdeepinder Singh with Police Station, City Faridkot. On next day, when it came into knowledge that Gurdeepinder Singh fell into Rajasthan Canal alongwith his motorcycle, then DDR No.19 dated 29.02.2004 was also lodged with Police Station, City Faridkot. Gurdeepinder Singh died due to accident but his dead body was not found from canal after due search, complainants obtained the decree to declare the missing person dead if not heard from last 7 years, from the Ld Court of ACJ (Sr Division), Faridkot on dated 12.02.2014. In this decree, court declared the husband of complainant as dead and plaintiffs were declared as legal heirs of Gurdeepinder Singh. Complainants being wife and son of Gurdeepinder Singh are entitled to get claim of insurance of life of Gurdeepinder Singh being nominees. Earlier, complainants visited and contacted the OPs many times by all the means but to no effect. OPs replied through various e-mails which were sent by complainants in which OPs demanded some documents relating to death of Gurdeepinder Singh and identity of complainants. The Ops demanded post mortem report of Gurdeepinder Singh. As Gurdeepinder Singh met with accident and fell into canal, so the dead body of Gurdeepinder Singh was not recovered even after thorough search for his body. Complainants also served legal notice dated 15.02.2016 to OPs which was replied by OP-3 on 19.02.2016. Complainant lodged claim with Ops, but Ops repudiated the same.
cc no.-135 of 2018
Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint before ld Forum in response to which OPs admitted before their Forum that they are ready to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of said Gurdeep Inder Singh within one month of receipt of relevant documents and by the orders of this Forum, complaint of the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn being premature vide order dated 26.05.2017. After that in compliance of order dated 26.05.2017 and on assurance of Ops that they would pay the insurance claim to complainants, complainants submitted all the requisite documents with OPs, but till now, they have not cleared the payment of insurance amount to them, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practise on their part and has caused harassment and mental tension to them. Complainants have prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, the OP-2 filed written statement wherein OP-2 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP is only a proforma party and has no role in grievance of complainants. Complaint filed by complainant is misconceived and it is an abuse of process of law
cc no.-135 of 2018
and it is filed on false and frivolous allegations. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 OP-3 filed written statement in which they have denied all the allegations of complainants being wrong and incorrect and asserted that no cause of action arises against them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
6 OP-4 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complaint is without any cause of action. No intimation regarding alleged incident dated 28.02.2004 was given to them depriving them to inspect the spot and to get first hand knowledge regarding alleged loss. Till date, complainants have not submitted any documents for processing their claim. Complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and they did not have any notice regarding this complaint and on receipt of notice from this Forum, they immediately contacted OP-1 and OP-2 about this case and they disclosed that present case has been closed by them on 31.03.2015 due to non submission of required documents like post mortem report, death certificate, insurance claim form and bank details of the nominee. Complainants have not lodged any claim with them and has concealed the material facts from this
cc no.-135 of 2018
Forum. DDR dated 28.02.2004 shows that death of husband of complainant is not an accidental death, rather it is a case of suicide. Moreover, present complaint is barred in view of order dated 26.05.2017 passed by this Forum as complainant failed to make compliance of order dt 26.05.2017 and did not submit requisite documents for settlement of claim within 15 days as per order of this Forum and thereafter, answering OP was to clear the claim with in 90 days of receipt of requisite documents. It is admitted by OP-4 that they received copy of judgment, death certificate, copy of RC and passport but denied the receipt of documents which are necessary to initiate the processing of claim. All the other allegations are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
7 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-18 and then, closed their evidence.
8 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Siddharth Tewari Ex OP-2/A and closed the same on behalf of OP-2. Ld Counsel for OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamaljit Singh Ex OP-4/1 and also closed the same on behalf of OP-4. OP-3 did not tender any evidence and got recorded his statement to the effect that written version already submitted by them be considered as their evidence.
cc no.-135 of 2018
9 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.
10 From the careful perusal of documents and after carefully going through the record placed on file, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant no.1 is the wife and complainant no.2 is the son of deceased Gurdeepinder Singh. Gurdeepinder Singh purchased a Hero Splendor Motorcycle from OP-3 where he was issued Group Personal Accident Policy and was insured under Hero Good Life Programme. On 28.02.2004, husband of complainant Gurdeepinder Singh while going on his motorcycle to bring his son from school, did not return back. It came to the knowledge that he fell into Rajasthan Canal alongwith his motorcycle suddenly in order to save himself from some stray cattle. DDR No.25 dated 28.02.2004 was got recorded by Tejinder Singh brother of Gurdeepinder Singh with Police Station, City Faridkot. On next day, when it came into knowledge that Gurdeepinder Singh fell into Rajasthan Canal alongwith his motorcycle, then DDR No.19 dated 29.02.2004 was also lodged with Police Station, City Faridkot. Gurdeepinder Singh died due to accident but his dead body was not found from canal after due search and complainants obtained the decree to declare the missing person dead if not heard from last 7 years from the Ld Court of ACJ (Sr Division), Faridkot on dated 12.02.2014. In this decree, court declared the husband of complainant as dead and plaintiffs were declared as legal heirs of
cc no.-135 of 2018
Gurdeepinder Singh. Complainants being wife and son of Gurdeepinder Singh are entitled to get claim of insurance being nominees. Earlier, complainants visited and contacted the OPs many times by all the means but to no effect. OPs replied through various e-mails which were sent by complainants in which OPs demanded some documents relating to death of Gurdeepinder Singh and identity of complainants. The Ops demanded post mortem report of Gurdeepinder Singh. As Gurdeepinder Singh met with accident and fell into canal, so the dead body of Gurdeepinder Singh was not recovered even after thorough search for his body. Complainants also served legal notice dated 15.02.2016 to OPs which was replied by OP-3 on 19.02.2016. Now, grievance of the complainant is that in compliance of order dated 26.05.2017, passed by this Forum, complainants submitted requisite documents for settlement of claim to OPs, but despite completion of all formalities and submission of requisite documents, OPs have not made payment of insurance claim amount on account of death of Gurdeepinder Singh to them. Further observed that Ops have stressed mainly on post mortem report which is not furnished by complainants, then to clear that discrepancy, it is made out that when dead body has not been found then question of post mortem or post mortem report does not arise at all. There is no doubt that Gurdeepinder Singh was insured with OPs and he died while riding a motorcycle and after his death as per decree dated 12.02.2014, complainants are nominees to receive insurance claim on account of death of said Gurdeepinder Singh. Ex C-10 and C-11 i.e the copies of DDR dt 28.02.2004 and dt 29.02.2004 and Ex C-3 and Ex C-5
cc no.-135 of 2018
copy of judgment/decree dated 12.02.2014 are sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the pleadings of complainant that her husband died by drowning in canal while saving himself from stray cattle on road and Ld court of the then Additional Civil Judge (Jr Division) gave declaration that her husband has been presumed to be dead and both complainant and her son are the legal heirs to inherit the estate and properties and for all kinds of benefits on behalf of deceased Gurdeepinder Singh. Authenticity of death certificate Ex C-14 is self explanatory. On the other hand, OPs have nothing to contradict the pleadings of complainants
11 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by complainant counsel, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-4 in not clearing the claim of complainant on false grounds. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-4. OP-4 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-to complainants as insured value on account of death of Gurdeepinder Singh husband of complainant no. 1 and father of complainant no. 2 alongwith interest @ 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OP-4 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainants for harassment and mental agony suffered by them as well as for litigation expenses. Complaint against OP-1 to 3 stands hereby dismissed as they have no role in making payment of insurance claim to the complainants. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order,
cc no.-135 of 2018
failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 11.06.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal
Member President
