Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 14 against the opposite party on the allegations that one Malkit Singh son of Kashmir Singh was serving in the Indian Army as Hawaldar in the army personal No.15139297K, 39 Field Regiment (Laleali) and during his life time the opposite party No.1 issued insurance cover in the name of said Malkit Singh for the Defence salary having package account bearing No.044701508617. Said Malkit Singh murdered on 3.6.2016 and after his death the complainant being his legally wedded wife is entitled to all service benefits of the said deceased from the opposite party No.2 besides the amount of Rs.5 Lacs under the insurance cover from the opposite party No.1 to which complainant is legally entitled and opposite party No.1 is legally bound to pay the same. The opposite party No.2 through various official letters directed the opposite party No.1 to make the payment of Rs.5 lacs of the insurance cover to the complainant but the opposite party No.1 has failed to accede the genuine request of the complainant till date beside that the complainant has also requested the opposite party No.1 in that respect but the opposite party No. 1 has failed to release the payment and that act of the opposite party is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law which amounts deficiency in service. The complainant has locus standi to file the present complaint against opposite party on account of deficiency in service on the reason that although all the relevant record to release the insurance amount has been duly received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant as well opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No. 1 has failed to release the amount till date The complainant is legally entitled to the amount of Rs.5 lacs of the insurance amount and the opposite party no.1 is legally bound to pay the same along with interest from June 2016 @ 18% p.a. till the realization of the amount. The complainant has prayed that the following directions be given to the opposite parties.
(i) To give direction to the opposite party No. 1 to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 5 Lacs bearing account No. 044701508617 in respect No. 1513/297A HAV (OPR) Malkit Singh alongwith interest @ 18% from June 2016 till realization.
(ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lac resulting in to causing physical as well as mental agony to the complainant.
(iii) To pay cost of litigation of Rs. 20,000/-.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 has appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant is not a consumer qua the opposite party nor the opposite party No. 1 has committed any deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Opening of the salary saving bank account by Sh. Malkiat Singh with the opposite party No. 1 is not disputed, however as per terms and conditions no insurance facility is available on the saving bank account. The insurance facility is available on the debit cards issued by the bank and the claims if any payable to the eligible persons are to be processed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. As per records, the account holder had obtained Silver debit card for which there is no provision for personal accident insurance benefit. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite party without any cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Neither the complainant is a consumer qua the opposite party No. 1 nor the opposite party No. 1 has committed any deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. As per term and conditions no insurance facility is available on the saving bank account opened by the said Malkiat Singh with the opposite party. The insurance facility is available on the debit cards issued by the bank and the claims if any, payable to eligible persons are to be processed by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not legally maintainable. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this commission. This commission does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The present complaint is baseless and abuse of process of law just to harass the opposite party. The claim of the complainant is excessive and exaggerated. The opposite parties seek protection under section 45 & Section 64 V.B. of the Insurance Act and reserves its right to file any other additional facts or submissions as may be warranted in future. The present complaint against the opposite party is not maintainable as there as is no allegations against opposite party. Even the present complaint is premature as no claim has ever been lodged against the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5 Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 and it was duly served but it opted not to come forward to contest the complaint and consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte
6 To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of letter dated 15.5.2017 to Manager by commanding officer seeking information Ex. C-2, copy of another letter No. CC/A dated 2.5.2017 Ex. C-3, copy of the death report of Malkit Singh dated 6.6.2016 Ex. C-4, copy of the death certificate of Malkit Singh Ex. C-5, copy of the FIR No. 51/2016 registered at P.S. Rajasansi, Amritsar Ex. C-6, copy of the pass book of Narinder Kaur Ex. C-7, copy of the statement of account for the month ending July 2016 of Malkit Singh Ex. C-8 and C-9, copy of the letter dated 26/A dated 2.4.2017 by the S.S. Sarangi to the Rehabilitation Centre Ex. C-10, copy of the letter dated 12.3.2017 seeking information for non payment of the insurance claim under RTI Ex. C-11, cop of the letter dated 27.1.2017 regarding information of death payment in lieu of insurance claim from DSP Account in respect of Malkiat Singh Ex. C-12, copy of the letter dated 20.10.2016 written to the ICICI Bank of the payment in lieu of the insurance claim to the complainant by the Lt. Col. Ranga Nath Pathak Ex. C-13, copy of the another letter written to the bank dated 17.8.2016 Ex. C-14, copy of the letter dated 21.7.2016 written to the bank Ex. C-15, copy of letter dated 2.7.2016 written to ICICI Bank for payment in lieu of the insurance claim with respect to the death of Malkiat Singh Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8 From the combined and harmonious reading of documents and pleadings is going to prove that Malkiat Singh was serving in the Indian Army as Havaldar and he was having bank account No. 044701508617 and he is using debit card of the opposite party No. 1. Said Malkiat Singh was murdered and after his death, the wife of Malkiat Singh claimed insurance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as insurance cover on his Debit Card. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 have denied the claim on the ground that the complainant has not placed on record any insurance policy as well as number of the policy. However, the opposite party No. 1 has stated that as per terms and conditions no insurance facility is available on saving bank account. Further they have admitted that insurance facility is available on the Debit Card issued by the bank and claim if any is payable by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. He further stated that the account holder had obtained Silver Debit Card for which there is no personal accidental benefit. As such, opposite parties No. 1 and 3 denied the claim of the complainant. From the perusal of the record Ex. C-8 it shows that the premium to the tune of Rs. 295/- has been deducted from the complainant. As per Ex. C-3, the opposite party No. 2 has written so many letters to the opposite party No. 3 to release the claim of Malkiat Singh. As per Ex. C-14 a letter was written to the bank authority by officiating Battery Commander to release the personal accident insurance claim for DSP account holder for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Meaning thereby the deceased was duly insured by the opposite parties. However, in this matter both the parties have failed to produce on record the insurance policy. The opposite party No. 2 has been proceeded against ex parte in this complaint. The opposite party No. 2 can place on record best possible evidence regarding the insurance cover note of Malkiat Singh. But they have preferred to proceed expate in this matter. Neither insurance policy nor terms and conditions are on the record. The opposite party No. 1 is stating in their reply that the complainant was holder of Silver Debit Card and there is no provision to provide the insurance claim on Silver Debit Card. The factual position can be cleared from the insurance cover but the same is not placed on record by both the parties. There is no dispute regarding saving account of Malkiat Singh. To prove the above said facts detail evidence, cross examination is required and intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. As such , this District Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
9 In view of above discussion, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of her grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
03.11.2022
