BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/537 of 13.7.2010 

                                                Decided on:          20.9.2011

Balbir Kaur widow of Hakam Singh r/o village Dodra, PO Kularan Kalan, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Iffco-Tokia Gen.Insurance Co.Ltd. Customer Service Centre North, Iffco House, 3^rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019, through its Head.

2.                 Iffco-Tokio Insurance Services Ltd., SCO 65, 2^nd Floor, New Leela Bhavan,Patiala through its Area Manager.

3.                 The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mall Road, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          Hakam Singh s/o Isher Singh since deceased husband of the complainant was the holder of the loan account no.7/83 under a ‘Kisan Credit Card Scheme’ with the Patiala Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., The Mall Patiala i.,e. op no.3. at its Gajewas branch and was insured for Rs.50000/- in case of accidental death by op no.1 as per arrangement made with op no.3 for providing insurance cover to their subscribers of the loan accounts.

2.       The requisite premium for  extending the insurance cover was debited from the account of the deceased by op no.3 regularly and forwarded to op no.1.

3.       The complainant is a nominee and wife of the deceased.

4.       It is further averred that the deceased had died on 8.10.2008 by way of electrocution in the fields.

5.       The complainant was approached by op no.3, who advised her to move the claim application being a nominee of the deceased.Op no.3 also provided her the details of the documents required for the same. As advised, the complainant moved an application for claim with op no.3 alongwith requisite documents, who forwarded the same to op no.1 on 21.1.2009 vide letter no.15618.

6.       Despite repeated requests and reminders sent through op no.3, op no.1 failed to respond the application for claim of the complainant. Thus describing the act of op no.1&2 to be a deficiency in service , the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops no.1&2 to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- the amount of the claim with interest @18% per annum from the date of forwarding of the claim by op no.3; to pay her Rs.25000/- by way of compensation on account of hardship and the tension suffered by the complainant at the hands of the ops and also to provide her  Rs.20000/- as costs of the litigation.

7.       On notice, ops no.1&2 appeared and filed their written version while op no.3 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.

8.       In the written statement filed by the contesting ops , they have raised certain legal objections, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable being premature as no claim was lodged with the ops by the complainant; that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complainant not being a consumer  and the complaint having involved the complicated questions of law and facts, it is a prerogative of the Civil Court to determine the complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied that the deceased had a loan account no.7/83 under Kissan Credit Card Scheme with op no.3 and was insured for Rs.50000/- in case of accidental death by op no.1 as per the arrangement made with op no.3. Ops no.1&2 have not issued any such policy, the particulars of which have not been given by the complainant.

9.       It is also denied that requisite premium for extending insurance cover was debited from the account of the deceased by op no.3 regularly and forwarded to op no.1.

10.     It is also denied if the complainant is a beneficiary being a nominee of the deceased . It is also denied if the documents like Kisan Credit Card of the deceased , loan account ledger, folio loan account, register entries etc. were submitted to the ops. Ops have denied all other averments made by the complainant, going against them and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

11.     In support of her claim, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1 her sworn affidavit, Ex.C2 the sworn affidavit of Nirbhai Singh, Ex.C3 the sworn affidavit of Major Singh, Ex.C4 the sworn affidavit of Harbhajan Singh Lambardar alongwith the documents, Exs.C5 to C18 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

12.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Rajiv Chowdhry of the ops at New Delhi and closed their evidence.

13.     The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the ops none having appeared on behalf of the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

14.     The complainant has produced,Ex.C6, the copy of the personal accident insurance claimant’s statement to have been filed by the complainant with op no.3.Ex.C5 is the copy of letter no.15618 dated 21.1.2009 whereby the insurance claim under Personal Accident Insurance cover for Kisan Credit Card Scheme  of Hakam Singh S/o Isher Singh R/o village Dodra P.O.Kularan Tehsil Samana District Patiala was forwarded by op no.3 to op no.2.

15.     There is however, no evidence to have been led by the complainant that op no.1 had floated any insurance scheme covering personal accident  under Kissan Credit Card Scheme in respect of the holders of the loan account with op no.3. In view of the ops no.1&2 having categorically denied having issued any such policy and having made an arrangement with op no.3, it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to have led the evidence that op no.3 had been debiting the premium from the account of the deceased and remitting the same regularly to op no.2. Ex.C7 is the copy of the Kissan Credit Card of the deceased Hakam Singh. Ex.C9 is the copy of loan account no.7/83 of the deceased Hakam Singh. Ex.C8 is the copy of the ledger without bearing any name of the holder of the account, account number and the same does not  help  the Forum in any manner to say that any premium was being debited regularly from the account of the deceased

16.     It was not difficult for the complainant to have obtained a statement of account from op no.3 with regard to the premiums having been deducted from the account of the deceased in respect of insurance policy and to have been remitted to op no.1&2. Similarly it was not difficult for the complainant to have obtained the copy of the insurance policy issued by op no.1 covering the personal accident of a Kissan Credit Card holders of op no.3.

17.     For want of the requisite evidence to have been led by the complainant, it is not possible for us to say that there was any policy to have been issued by op no.1 in favour of the holders of the loan accounts with op no.3 issued under Kissan Credit Card Scheme and that any amount of the premium was ever debited from the account of the deceased Hakam Singh and remitted by op no.3 to ops no.1&2, in the absence of which it would appear that there are no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:20.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President