THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 172-14
Date of Institution : 27.2.2014
Date of Decision : 13.2.2015
Kuljit Kaur widow of Sukhwinder Singh R/o H.No. 477, Village Dhotian Tehsil & Distt.Tarn Taran
.....Complainant
Vs.
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Branch Office, 100-Feet Road, Near Jaycee Motors, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory
Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Limited service through Branch Office situated Amritsar SCO 44, 2nd Floor, B-Block, Nagpal Tower, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory
.....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.R.P.Singh, Adv
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Kapoor,Adv.
For opposite party No. 2 : Sh. S.K.Vyas,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Kuljit Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that her husband Sukhwinder Singh got financed his truck bearing account No.PB-22-J-0109 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/-. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh started making payments of
-2-
installments to opposite party No.1 against the aforesaid financial facility which was payable in monthly installment of Rs. 54,100/-. Therefore, on 21.1.2014 Sukhwinder Singh paid Rs. 27,410/- to opposite party No.1 for securing the loan amount and filled in the entire requisite documents/performas including proposal form on 21.1.2014. The said amount of premium of Rs. 27,410/-was duly deposited by Sukhwinder Singh with opposite party No.1 and proper receipt was issued to the husband of the complainant. It was assured by the opposite party No.1 that from 21.1.2014 the loan has been secured and in case of any mis-happening ocurs, it will be the libaility of opposite party No.2 to pay the loan amount to opposite party No.1. Husband of the complainant made the payment of second installment on 1.2.2014 amounting to Rs. 54091/-. According to the complainant her husband suffered cardiac arrest and was admitted in hospital, where he died on 12.2.2014 due to heart attack. Thereafter due intimation was given to the opposite party No.1 regarding the death of Sukhwinder Singh,husband of the complainant and it was also told to opposite party No.1 to inform the insurance company from which the loan amount was secured. Complainant has alleged that no document of insurance policy was earlier provided by the opposite party No.1 and the same was procured after the death of husband of the complainant. The officials of opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that they will inform the insurance company from which the loan payment was secured. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to provide the insurance documents vide which the loan of husband of the complainant was secured . The opposite party No.1 after many requests provided the certificate of insurance in which the date of issuing policy has been mentioned as 3.3.2014,whereas the husband of the complainant made the payment for insurance policy on 21.1.2014 and opposite party No.1 was duty bound to procure the insurance policy immediately after receiving the payment. After that complainant approached the official of oppsotie party No.2 and informed regarding
-3-
the policy and death of her husband but the officials of the opposite party No.2 flatly refused to listen to the complainant and told that the policy has been issued on 3.3.2014 and the death has occurred on 12.2.2014 which do not cover the policy period and further told that after receiving the payment from opposite party No.1, they issued the policy. Complainant has alleged that as the payment for securing the loan was made on 21.1.2014 against proper receipt and the official of opposite party No.1 told the complainant that they made the payment in time to the insurance company but they did not issue the policy immediately after receiving the payment of insurance cover. Then officials of opposite party No.1 again demanded the installment of loan amount and then it was told to the officials that she has already informed regarding the death and requested to recover the loan from opposite party No.2 from whom the loan payment was secured. After some time again the officials of opposite party No.1 contacted the complainant and insisted her to make the payment of installment and again she told them that as the loan was secured by insurance policy, therefore she is having no liability to pay further installments, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 not to recover the amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- from the complainant and be directed to recover the same from opposite party No.2. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that husband of the complainant after getting the vehicle in question financed from the replying opposite party, requested to facilitate him in insuring the loan amount and interest thereupon and they told that they deals only in financing the vehicles and can only facilitate him in getting the loan amount insured by opposite party No.2. Then replying opposite party told the complainant to deposit the requisite amount in his loan account and also requested to provide all
-4-
the requisite documents for the completion of the insurance contract. Accordingly the husband of the complainant deposited the proposed premium amount in his loan account for further paying to opposite party No.2. It was specifically told to the husband of the complainant that the replying opposite party till be able to transfer the amount to opposite party No.2 only after the receipt of required documents which the husband of the complainant promised to submit the same within 8-10 days. Thereafter husband of the complainant never visited the officials of replying opposite party. On 3.3.2014 the complainant visited the office of replying opposite party and deposited the documents as required by opposite party and deposited the documents as required by opposite party No.2 for insuring the loan amount and interest thereupon. Accordingly the replying opposite party immediately transferred the amount received from the husband of the complainant alongwith documents. After a few days, the complainant again visited the office of replying opposite party and informed that her husband has expired on 12.2.2014 and she was not in a position to pay the loan amount. It was submitted that complainant herself is the guilty of concealment of major fact of the death of her husband even on the date of supplying the documents required for the completion of insurance contract. It was further submitted that the husband of the complainant had already expired on the date, the formalities were complied with by the complainant, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that deceased Sukhwinder Singh or the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party in view of the fact that it is a case of unconcluded contract. The premium in this case was realized on 12.3.2014 whereas the proposal for insurance was signed by the life insured ie. Sukhwinder Singh on 21.1.2014 through opposite party No.1 which was received by the replying opposite party only on 12.3.2013
-5-
and based on the said proposal form and premium amount received, the certificate of insurance was issued on 15.3.2014. It was submitted that they are not aware about the death of life assured when certificate of insurance was issued . The original policy document was not dispatched to the life insured as the address of the life insured was a non serviceable location. As such it is an unconcluded contract, as such the replying opposite party is not liable to pay any claim amount, as alleged. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of death certificate Ex.C-2, copy of insurance certificate Ex.C-3, copy of account statement Ex.C-4, photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8, copy of newspaper Ex.C-9, photographs Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13, newspaper Ex.C-14, letter from Hinduja Leyland Ex.C-15, copy of schedule of payment Ex.C-16, payment receipt Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18, copy of payment for insurance policy Ex.C-19.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Harjeet Singh Ex.OP1/1, copy of contract Number PJPBAM 00072 Ex.OP1/2.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Salil C.Nair,VP and Head Legal Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/14.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for all the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for all the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by all the parties, it is clear that Sukhwinder Singh husband of the complainant got financed his truck bearing account No.PB-22-J-0109 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/-. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh started making payments of installments to opposite party No.1 against the
-6-
aforesaid financial facility which was payable in monthly installment of Rs. 54,100/-. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that they have facility to secure the loan by getting the loan amount insured from opposite party No.2 . Therefore, on 21.1.2014 Sukhwinder Singh paid Rs. 27,410/- to opposite party No.1 for securing the loan amount and filled in the entire requisite documents/performas including proposal form on 21.1.2014. The said amount of premium of Rs. 27,410/-was duly deposited by Sukhwinder Singh with opposite party No.1 against proper receipt as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant issued by opposite party No.1 which fully proves that an amount of Rs. 27,410/- has been received by opposite partyNo.1 from Sukhwinder Singh for securing the loan amount. The complainant alleges that said Sukhwinder Singh was assured by opposite party No.1 that from that date i.e 21.1.2014 his loan has been secured and in case of any mis-happening , it will be the liability of opposite party No.2 to pay the loan amount to opposite party No.1. Sukhwinder Singh continued paying the installments of loan facility to opposite party No.1. He paid the second installment on 1.2.2014. However Sukhwinder Singh,husband of the complainant suffered cardiac arrest and was admitted in hospital, where he died on 12.2.2014 due to heart attack. Intimation in this regard was given to opposite party No.1 with death certificate of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.C-2 and opposite party No.1 was also requested to inform the insurance company i.e. opposite party No.2 from which the loan amount was secured by opposite party No.1. However, the complainant came to know that no document of insurance policy was earlier provided by the opposite party No.1 and the same was procured after the death of husband of the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to provide the insurance documents, but in vain. However, opposite party No.1 provided the certificate of insurance to the complainant in which the date of issuing the policy has been mentioned as 3.3.2014, whereas the husband of the complainant
-7-
Sukhwinder Singh loanee made the payment of insurance policy premium on 21.1.2014. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party No.1 was duty bound to procure the insurance policy immediately after receiving the payment . But in the present case opposite party No.1 with gross negligence not got issued the policy immediately after receiving the payment for securing the loan. As such the complainant, who is the legal heir of Sukhwinder Singh loanee is liable to pay the amount outstanding against the aforesaid loan to opposite party No.1. Whereas the officials of opposite party No.1 are insisting the complainant to make the payment of installments. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that the husband of the complainant namely Sukhwinder Singh loanee after getting the vehicle in question financed from opposite party No.1, requested the opposite party No.1 to facilitate him in securing the loan amount and interest thereupon . Opposite party No.1 told him that it can facilitate him in getting the loan amount insured from opposite party No.1 . Opposite party No.1 contacted opposite party No.1 and asked it about the various formalities to be complied with. Opposite party No.2 sought some documents for processing the insurance and also the payment of premium amount. Accordingly, husband of the complainant Sukhwinder Singh paid the premium amount of the insurance to opposite party No.1 on 21.1.2014. However, Sukhwinder Singh submitted that he would provide all the requisite documents for the completion of insurance contract. Opposite party No.1 told Sukhwinder Singh that opposite party No.1 will be able to transfer the amount to opposite party No.2 only after the receipt of required documents. But thereafter the husband of the complainant Sukhwinder Singh never visited the office of opposite party No.1. Then on 3.3.2014 the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and deposited the documents, as required by opposite party No.2 for insuring the loan amount and
-8-
interest thereupon. Then opposite party No.1 immediately transferred the amount received from Sukhwinder Singh alongwith requisite documents to opposite party No.2 and thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 that her husband has expired on 12.2.2014. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that she has concealed this fact while submitting the documents. Opposite party No.2 issued the insurance policy cover on 3.3.2014. The alleged insurance agreement is not a concluded contract as the complainant is guility of concealment of material facts i.e death of her husband even on the date of supplying the documents. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. The case of opposite party No.2 is that neither Sukhwinder Singh deceased nor the complainant is the consumer of opposite party No.2 in view of the fact that it is a case of un-concluded contract. The premium in this case was realized in favour of opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1. However, the same was submitted to opposite party No.2 on 12.3.2014, whereas the proposal for insurance was signed by the life assured Sh. Sukhwinder Singh on 21.1.2014 through opposite party No.1 which was received by opposite party No.2 only on 12.3.2014 and then on the said proposal form and premium amount received the certificate of insurance was issued in favour of Sukhwinder Singh on 15.3.2014 Ex.OP2/2 and opposite party No.1 was informed vide receipt Ex.OP2/3. However, death of life assured occured on 12.2.2014 much before the date of issue of the policy by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 was not aware of the death of life insured when certificate of insurance Ex. OP2/2 was issued . Opposite party No.2 submitted that infact the original policy documents was not despatched to the life assured as the address of the life assured was non-serviceable and it was issued to opposite party No.1 . Opposite party No.2 tried to contact the life insured on several occasions but in vain. Opposite party No.2 submitted that as it is a un-
-9-
concluded contract as per Indian Contract Act , therefore, opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay any claim amount to opposite party No.1. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant or opposite party No.1.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Sukhwinder Singh husband of complainant got financed his truck bearing registration No. PB-22-J-0109 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/- . The said loan facility was repayable in monthly installment of Rs. 54100/-. The first installment was paid by Sukhwinder Singh to opposite party No.1 on 21.1.2014. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that they have facility to secure the loan alongwith interest thereupon, by getting insurance certificate from opposite party No.2 on 21.1.2014. Resultantly Sukhwinder Singh made payment of Rs. 27410/- to opposite party No.1 on 21.1.2014 for securing the loan amount alongwith interest. Sukhwinder Singh also filled in and signed proposal form on 21.1.2014 as admitted by opposite party No. 2 in para 7 of their preliminary objection, in their written version. The said payment was duly deposited with opposite party No.1 against proper receipt and there is entry in the statement of account of opposite party No.1 regarding the loan account of Sukhwinder Singh. There is no dispute that Sukhwinder Singh deposited the premium of insurance amounting to Rs. 27410/- in the account of opposite party No.1 on 21.1.2014 to secure his loan amount alongwith interest and this fact has been admitted by opposite party No.1 also as is evident from the statement of account of the loan account of the complainant issued by opposite party No.1 and this amount has been received by opposite party No.1 from Sukhwinder Singh on 21.1.2014 for securing the aforesaid loan amount as well as interest. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh also made the payment of second installment on 1.2.2014 amounting to Rs. 54100/- and this fact is also not disputed by the opposite party No.1. However, Sukhwinder
-10-
Singh died due to cardiac arrest on 12.2.2014 as is evident from the discharge summary card issued by Fortis Escort Hospital,Amritsar Ex.OP2/4 and the death summary Ex.OP2/5 as well as the death certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Chief Registrar ,Birth and Death, Punjab Ex.C-2. Intimation in this regard was also given to opposite party No.1 regarding the death of Sukhwinder Singh loanee and opposite party No.1 was also told to inform the insurance company from which the loan amount was secured.
12. Opposite party No.2 took plea that no doubt Sukhwinder Singh has deposited premium amount of insurance policy with opposite party No. 1 on 21.1.2014 in his aforesaid loan account but he did not produce the requisite documents. Opposite party No.1 as such in the absence of said requisite documents, could not submit the proposal form as well as the amount of premium to opposite party No.2. However, complainant produced the documents to opposite party No.1 on 3.3.2014 and then opposite party No.1 submitted the documents alongwith premium amount with opposite party No.2 on 12.3.2014 and opposite party No.2 issued insurance certificate Ex.OP2/2 to opposite party No.1 on 15.3.2014. The complainant did not inform about the death of Sukhwinder Singh to opposite party No.1 . So opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have impression that Sukhwinder Singh was alive and as such they issued the insurance cover Ex.OP2/2 after the death of Sukhwinder Singh, who had already expired on 12.2.2014. This plea of opposite party No.2 is not tenable because it is the admitted case of all the parties to the present complaint that Sukhwinder Singh deceased husband of complainant deposited the insurance premium with opposite party No.1 i.e. Rs.27410/- on 21.1.2014 and he also filled in the proposal form on 21.1.2014 and submitted the same with opposite party No.1 and this fact has been admitted by opposite party No.2 in para 7 of the preliminary objections of their written version that Sukhwinder Singh signed the proposal form on 21.1.2014 . All the documents of Sukhwinder Singh loanee i.e.ID Proof, etc.
-11-
which were required, were already with opposite party No.1 as they have granted loan facility of Rs. 19,50,000/- by financing the truck, to Sukhwinder Singh. Moreover, opposite party No.1 has not explained as to which documents were required from Sukhwinder Singh for the insurance certificate which the opposite party No.1 was bound to get from opposite party No.2 ; nor the opposite party No.1 has issued any notice/letter to said Sukhwinder Singh demanding any document for the fulfillment of requirement of the insurance certificate to be issued by opposite party No.2. Therefore,this story has been concocted by opposite party No.1 to save its skin that Sukhwinder Singh did not deposit the requisite documents with opposite party No.1 and present complainant wife of Sukhwinder Singh deposited the requisite documents with opposite party No.1 on 3.3.2014. Opposite party No.1 could not produce any evidence to prove that any document was submitted by the present complainant widow of Sukhwinder Singh with opposite party No.1 on 3.3.2014. Said Sukhwinder Singh expired due to cardiac arresst on 12.2.2012 at Fortis Escort Hospital ,Amritsar as is evident from discharge summary Ex.OP2/4 and death summary Ex.OP2/5 and other documents of Fortis Escort Hospital Ex.OP2/6, OP2/7,OP2/8 as well as from the death certificate of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.C-2 and this fact was duly informed to opposite party No.1 and thereafter when opposite party No.1 came to know about the death of Sukhwinder Singh on 12.2.2014, opposite party No.1 in order to save their skin submitted the documents as well as the premium amount paid by Sukhwinder Singh on 21.1.2014 to opposite party No.2 on 12.3.2014 without informing opposite party No.2 regarding the death of Sukhwinder Singh which had already taken place on 12.2.2014 and opposite party No.2 was not aware of the death of Sukhwinder Singh, as such they issued insurance certificate in the name of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.OP2/2 on 15.3.2014 and that too to opposite party No.1 and not to Sukhwinder Singh because opposite party No.2 in their written version have
-12-
admitted that they had no exact address of Sukhwinder Singh available with opposite party No.2 . So this shows that all this happened due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 , as such opposite party No.1 is not entitled to recover the amount of loan amount as well as interest accrued thereon, from the complainant, after the death of Sukhwinder Singh loanee.
13. Consequently we allow the complaint holding that opposite party No.1 is not entitled to recover any amount of the aforesaid loan alongwith interest thereon , from the complainant widow of Sukhwinder Singh, loanee . However, opposite party No.1 can get this amount from opposite party No.2, if the insurance cover issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of Sukhwinder Singh after the death of Sukhwinder Singh i.e on 15.3.2014 Ex.OP2/2, if the terms and conditions of such insurance certificate so permits. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
14. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
13.02.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
