Haryana

Kurukshetra

MA/2/2019

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj kalra

07 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Original Complaint no. 1268 of 2012.

Date of instt. 02.07.2012.

CC No.163 of 2019 (after restoration) 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.08.2019.

 

Inderjit Singh son of late Shri Sadha Singh son of Shri Mangal Singh, resident of village Masana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th and 5^th Floors, Iffco Tower, Plot no.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon through its Manager/ Incharge.
2. The Masana Co-Operative Credit & Service Society Ltd., Masana, District Kurukshetra through its Manager.  

 

    ..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for complainant. 

 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

 Opposite party no.2 in person.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Inderjit Singh against Iffco Tokio General Insurance and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is pertinent to mention here that present complaint was adjourned sine die on the statement of learned counsel for complainant vide order dated 3.3.2016 and was to be revived as and when succession certificate is filed. Now, the present complaint has been revived on the application of complainant vide orders dated 12.6.2019 as the complainant has filed succession certificate.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that Shri Sadha Singh son of Sh. Mangal Singh (since deceased) father of complainant was the member of op no.2 and the complainant is son/ nominee and legal representative of said Sadha Singh. That Sadha Singh during his life time had executed a registered will No.281 dated 15.10.2004 in favour of complainant. Consequently, after the death of Sadha Singh, the complainant has inherited all his estate movable and immovable on the basis of registered will. That there is policy of op no.1 namely “Sankat Haran Bima Yojna’ and according to the said policy, in case of death of the person who purchased the fertilizer of Iffco/ Kribhko/IPL, a sum of Rs.4000/- per bag is to be paid as compensation as per terms and conditions of the said policy. It is further averred that complainant being the beneficiary of the above said policy is the consumer of the ops. That father of complainant had purchased 32 bags of DAP Iffco at the rate of Rs.497.50 per bag for a total sum of Rs.15,920/- from op no.2 vide invoice/ bill no.189 dated 1.11.2010. It is further averred that Sadha Singh father of complainant died on 28.6.2011 due to injuries suffered in a road side accident and an FIR No.179 dated 28.6.2011, under Section 279, 304A IPC was registered at police station Shahabad. Post mortem examination of the dead body of Sadha Singh was conducted by the Medical Officer, LNJP, Hospital, Kurukshetra vide PMR No.265/11 dated 28.6.2011. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant being the son/ nominee submitted claim to op no.1 after verification from op no.2 for payment of compensation as per policy alongwith all the necessary documents  which were required alongwith the said claim application. The copy of the registered will was also produced with op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 instead of approving and paying the claim to the complainant directed the complainant vide letter dated 16.1.2012 to produce the succession certificate which was not necessary. That the complainant approached the op no.1 time and again and requested to pay the compensation as per policy, but op no.1 did not pay any heed. There is great deficiency in service on the part of ops due to which the complainant has been suffering great loss and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

4.             On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with ulterior motive and is liable to be dismissed with special costs, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and is exclusively triable by the Civil Court, that complainant is not consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, that complainant has no cause of action against the answering ops and as such the complaint is not maintainable, that complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of the parties, that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, that claim file of complainant has been rightly closed as ‘No claim’ because complainant has failed to provide copy of original succession certificate, which is mandatory for approving the claim of complainant and that complainant is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. On merits, it is submitted that op no1. vide letter dated 16.1.2012 requested the complainant to provide succession certificate but that was not provided, so claim file of complainant was legally closed as ‘No claim’. All other contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

5.             The complainant produced documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6. Ops did not file any documents.

6.             As mentioned above, on 3.3.2016 the present complaint was adjourned sine die and now same has been revived on the application of complainant as complainant has filed succession certificate. In the application filed by complainant for restoration of the complaint, it is also submitted that complainant/ applicant wrote a letter dated 28.3.2019 to the ops and requested for release of claim and sent the copy of succession certificate, but the ops have failed to do the needful.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

8.             Admittedly the complainant purchased 32 bags of IFFCO DAP compost of Rs.15,920/- as annexure C-1.  Ld. Counsel for complainant contended that as per scheme of OP No.1 Sankat Haran Bima Yojna the complainant is entitled for compensation.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant is argued that complainant is the beneficiary of the Sankat Haran Bima Yojna scheme.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant died on 28.6.2011 and his post mortem report is Annexure C-4.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that he fulfill the all the requirement of Ops, but Ops repudiate the claim of the complainant on the basis of Succession Certificate as the complainant not produce.  Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 contended that complainant not produce the original Succession Certificate, which is mandatory for approving the claim of the complainant. He further argued that claim file of the complainant was legally closed as No Claim.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on file photocopy of succession certificate. He contended that original succession certificate submitted in the insured company. But till now Op No.1 have not paid insured amount to the complainant.  It is deficiency on the part of Op No.1.

10.            At the time of arguments Op No.2 placed on record written statement.  But written statement on behalf of Op No.2 has already been placed on file.  So the written statement filed by Op No.2 treated as written arguments i.e. Mark-A.  OP No.2 says that in Mark-A, the father of the complainant had taken loan from OP No.2 and Op No.2 get insured the father of the complainant.  The amount of claim should be given to the Op No.2 which was taken by the father of the complainant as loan.  OP No.2 also placed on file outstanding loan amount of complainant’s father i.e. Mark-B.  The complainant made a statement before this Forum, he will pay all the amount of Op No.2 after getting from Op No.1.

11.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.66060/- to Op No.2 i.e. original loan amount of father of complainant Sadha Singh.  Remaining amount be given to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. OP No.2 is directed not to recover the interest on the loan amount from the complainant. We also direct the op no.1 to f

urther pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:07.08.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.