Complaint No: 303 of 2019.

              Date of Institution: 26.09.2019.

                      Date of order: 17.10.2023

1.    Sarabjit Wd/o Pargat Masih

2.    Priya D/o Pargat Masih aged about 13 years (minor)

3.   Vijay Masih son of Pargat Masih aged about 11 years (minor)

4.   Simon Masih son of Pargat Masih aged about 3 years (minor)

      All minors through their mother complainant no.1 as their natural guardian and next friends who has got no adverse interest against the interest of the minors.

All residents of village Amargarh, P.O. Wadala Bangar, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ….Complainants.

                                                  VERSUS

Indusind Bank Limited, Improvement Trust Market, Kalanaur Chowk, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur-143521, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                                                                                    ….. Opposite party.

                                                 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.Munishwar Nagpal, Advocate.  

              For the opposite party: Sh.Vinod Harchand, Advocate. 

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.  

          Sarabjit and others, Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Indusind Bank Limited (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).  

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant no.1 is the legally wedded wife and complainant’s no.2 to 4 are the daughter and sons of deceased Pargat Masih. It is further pleaded that all are the permanent resident of the above mentioned address. It is further pleaded that complainant no.2 to 4 are minors, hence they cannot file the present complaint personally and the present complaint is being filed by complainant no.2 to 4 through their mother complainant no.1 as their natural guardian and next friends who has got no adverse interest against the interest of the minors. It is further pleaded that Late Pargat Masih was the owner cum driver of the Truck-Tralla bearing Regd. No.PB-06-V-8501, which was financed from opposite party. It is further pleaded that Opposite party/bank is in the business of finance of Cars, Trucks and other vehicles and are having contract with Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company for the insurance of all the vehicle financed by opposite party, as such opposite party got insured the Truck Tralla of Late Pargat Masih for an IDV of Rs.22,80,000/- and charged Rs.68,776/- as premium of insurance. It is further pleaded that as the above Tralla was financed by opposite party as such they also got Group Insurance of the deceased Pargat Masih for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company and Late Pargat Masih paid the premium of Rs.5590/- to opposite party. It is further pleaded that Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company issued a Certificate bearing No.2841/00180821/0003/000/00 on 27.04.2016 and policy was valid from 20.04.2016 to 19.04.2021 with reference No.CU673644 and plan CV 155. It is further pleaded that in the column of the nominee in the certificate of insurance policy, the name of the opposite party is mentioned.  It is further pleaded that on 16.03.2018, Late Pargat Masih husband and father of the complainants, met with an accident in the area of Loonkaransar PS Mahajan, District Bikaner, Rajasthan and due to this accident, Pargat Masih, husband and father of the complainants, died at the spot. It is further pleaded that to this effect an FIR No.0018 dated 16.03.2018 was registered under section 279/304-A of IPC with police station Mahajan, Loonkaransar and this accident was reported to the opposite party and also to the Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that complainant fulfilled all the formalities as advised by the Insurance Company and submitted all the documents as required to opposite party for the claim of Group Insurance to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- as this policy was sourced through opposite party and opposite party is the nominee in this Certificate of Insurance.  It is further pleaded that Chola-Mandlam MS General Insurance Company credited Rs.15,00,000/- in the loan  account of Pargat Masih maintained by opposite party on 18.06.2018 vide claim No.2841004099 of Group Insurance but opposite party did not release this amount to the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased Pargat Masih till today. It is further pleaded that complainant fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the documents relating to the claim to the opposite party, but instead of releasing the insured amount, the opposite party is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that the complainant alongwith her brother visited the branch office of opposite party at Gurdaspur so many times and requested the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.15 lakhs received by them from the Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company, but they have not released.  It is further pleaded that a legal notice dated 07.08.2019 was also served upon the opposite party but all in vain. It is further pleaded that the opposite party is not releasing the amount of group insurance received by them on 18.06.2018 from the Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony and physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- received by them from the Insurance Company on 18.06.2018 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 18.06.2018 till its actual realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as physical harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the present complaint with the intention to harass the opposite party, and the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally & deliberately. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the vehicle in question was got financed for commercial purpose and earning profits only. It is pleaded that the truth of the matter is that the co-borrower of Pargat Masih had informed the opposite party regarding the death of the Pargat Masih, who was informed by the opposite party to submit the succession certificate of said Pargat Masih duly issued by the Hon'ble Civil Court for receiving the balance insurance amount after adjusting the due loan amount against the Pargat Masih, but none has submitted the succession certificate of Pargat Masih for the entitlement of claim of insurance amount.  It is further pleaded that no notice has been served to the opposite party by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant had never approached or claimed the alleged amount from the opposite party. It is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled for any interest on the alleged amount. It is further pleaded that complainant had never submitted the succession certificate of the deceased Pargat Masih. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          On merits, the opposite party have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarabjit (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 along with other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gagandeep (Assistant Manager, M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch Gurdaspur as Ex.OP-1 along with reply.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by the complainant but not filed by the opposite party.

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that deceased Pargat Masih had got his truck-tralla financed from opposite party and the said truck-tralla was insured with Chola MS General Insurance Company for IDV Rs.22,80,000/- and the opposite party had also obtained Group Insurance of deceased Pargat Masih for Rs.15,00,000/- from the same company. It is further argued that on 16.03.2018 Pargat Masih died in a road accident while driving the truck-tralla in dispute and on claim being lodged the claim was settled by the Chola MS General Insurance Company and amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the opposite party on 18.06.2018 by Chola MS General Insurance Company. It is further argued that opposite party has failed to release the amount for want of succession certificate which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as complainants No.1 to 4 are class-I legal heirs of the  deceased.

9.       Counsel for the opposite party has argued that amount of Rs.15,00,000/- could not be released in favaour of the complainants as they failed to submit succession certificate and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one truck-tralla No.PB-06-V-8501 and the said vehicle was financed by opposite party. It is further admitted fact that the opposite party had also obtained group insurance of deceased Pargat Masih for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from Chola MS General Insurance Company. It is further admitted fact that complainant No.1 is nominee as per the policy. It is further admitted fact owner/driver of truck-tralla late Sh.Pargat Masih met with an accident on 16.03.2018 and died. It is further admitted fact that personal accident claim in respect of death of Pargat Masih was received by the opposite party on 18.06.2018 from Chola MS General Insurance Company. It is further admitted fact that the said amount was not released in favour of the complainants for want of succession certificate. The disputed issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether succession certificate was mandatory for releasing the amount in favour of the complainants. Perusal of file shows that opposite party has failed to place on record even a single letter by way of which the opposite party ever demanded succession certificate from the complainants. Moreover, the complainants had already  placed on record legal heirs certificate duly issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 12.10.2018 as per which all the legal heirs of deceased Pargat Masih have been mentioned. Even the legal heir i.e. Smt.Shindo who is mother of deceased Pargat Masih who has now died and her death certificate is also placed on record as per which Smt.Shindo expired on 05.06.2021 meaning thereby that the complainants No.1 to 4 are only legal heirs to claim the amount payable on account of death of Pargat Masih.

11.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants No.1 to 4 in equal share alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 18.06.2018 till realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants for mental tension, agony, harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. Entire exercised shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

12.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 17, 2023                                                        Member.

*YP*