Punjab

StateCommission

FA/991/2013

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karamjit Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Chawla

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.991 of 2013

 

                                                Date of Institution: 13.09.2013               

                                               Date of Decision:  01.03.2016

 

1.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited having its           registered office at G.E Plaza, Airport Road, Yerewada, Pune     through its Chairman or any other person competent to receive the Summons.

 

2.      Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited having its branch       office at SCO No.3, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue,   Amirtsar through its Branch Manager or any other person     competent to receive the summons.

 

          (through Mr.Rajinder Singh Kalsi, Zonal Legal Manager (North)        Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 215-217, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

 

 

                                                           Appellants/Opposite parties        

 

                             Versus

 

Smt. Karanjit Kaur widow of late Sh. Diwan Singh, r/o VPO Balasrai, Amritsar

 

                                                                    ..Respondent/Complainant

                                                           

 

First Appeal against order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Amritsar

 

Quorum:-

 

            Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri. H.S Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants                 : Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate

          For the respondent               : Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          Aggrieved by order dated 23.04.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Amritsar (in short, the District Forum), the appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint). The District Forum Amritsar  accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% to complainant, besides cost of litigation of Rs.2000/-. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Karamjit Kaur has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs, on the averments that her husband Dewan Singh (since deceased) obtained insurance policy bearing no.0187640120  namely "Investerplus Premier" commencing from 26.10.2010 with a sum assured of Rs.2,40,000/- and paid annual premium of Rs.12,000/-. She supplied all documents, as required for obtaining policy, to OPs. She has paid premium to OP regularly. After death of her husband due to heart attack, she lodged insurance claim with OPs, but it was repudiated by OPs, vide letter dated 14.07.2011. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against OPs directing them to pay the insurance claim amount to her along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till payment, besides Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections by the OPs that policy was obtained by deceased Dewan Singh, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, by concealing his correct age by understating his age by three years. On merits, taking of insurance policy by Dewan Singh (since deceased) was admitted by the OPs. It was further averred that Dewan Singh deceased declared his date of birth as 14.03.1955 and produced the copy of driving licence, which was forged and the claim was repudiated on that ground. The driving licence is accepted as a standard age proof, whereas Voter ID card is taken as non-standard age proof. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, her affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5, affidavit of Ankush Mahajan Assistant Manager Operations Ex.R-6 and terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R-7.   On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Amrtisar, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 23.04.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Amritsar dated 23.04.2013, the OPs the present appellants, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the evidence on the record in this case.

6.      The submission of counsel for the appellants before us is that Dewan Singh (since deceased) obtained the insurance policy bearing no.0187640120, on the basis of forged driving licence containing wrong age by understating his age by three years. The respondent of this appeal rebutted it. We have examined the material documents on the record. There is no dispute regarding the fact of taking insurance policy by Dewan Singh (since deceased) from the OPs. The reliance of OPs now appellants to seek repudiation of the insurance claim is on wrong date of birth given by Dewan Singh in the driving licence. The appellants relied upon document Ex.R-2 Client Identification Slip. Ex.R-4 regarding some part of driving licence of Dewan Singh only. We find that the OPs now appellants alleged that forged driving licence has been produced by life assured Dewan Singh, containing his wrong age by understating his age by three years. The onus to establish this fact is on OPs now appellants. The counsel for appellants tried to rely upon Annexure 8 annexed with this appeal. We find that it is not signed by Registering Authority. It only bear stamp of Registering Authority and as such it is inconsequential. Consequently, we find that driving licence is the standard proof of age of birth of person.  In the voter I.D, card Ex.C-8, the date of birth is recorded as year 1953, which is not standard proof of age, as per projected case of the OPs. There is no substance on the record to prove that driving licence, which is standard proof of age of person, is forged document. The appellants, thus, remained unsuccessful in proving it on the record that this date of birth by understating it by three years has been stated in the driving licence by the life assured. We concur with the findings of the District Forum on this point and we find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case.

7.      As a result of our above discussion, we affirm the order of the District Forum Amritsar dated 23.04.2013, under challenge in this appeal and resultantly the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is ordered to be dismissed.

8.      The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount be paid to complainant by the appellants, as per order of District Forum within 45 days time from the date of receipt of this order.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                         (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

March 1, 2016                                                            

(ravi)