Haryana

Jind

CC/282/2012

Rohtash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajnish Garg

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 282 of 2012
                            Date of institution:-21.9.2012
                            Date of decision:- 15.7.2016
Rohtash Kumar r/o H.No.1260, Urban Estate, Jind.

                                       ..Complainant.
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jind through its Branch Manager.
Area Manager, LIC (H.F. Ltd.) SCO 144, Sec 13, Karnal-132001.

                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.  

Present:-    Sh. Rajnish Garg, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. Gulshan Arora, Adv.for opposite party No.1.
            Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.  
Order:-
               Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken the house loan from the opposite party No.2 through its  agent Sunder Lal vide loan account No.15007768 dated 15.6.2007. The monthly installments i.e. EMI were declared by the opposite party No.2 as Rs.8064/- per month and advance cheques were given by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. It is alleged that on 29.11.2008 the agent Sunder Lal r/o Jind told the complainant that the EMI of November 2008 was pending  against him then the complainant
                Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….2…..
 deposited the cash amount of Rs.8064/- to the opposite party No.2 through the agent Sunder Lal. But when the complainant checked his PNB branch account, the EMI amount Rs.8064/- was debited from the complainant’s account vide cheque No.317656 on 10.11.2008, so the EMI was deposited twice in the month of November, 2008. Thereafter, the complainant requested to the opposite parties for adjusting the double EMI amount but the opposite parties never gave any response. The complainant also sent the registered letter dated 19.6.2012 regarding adjustment of double EMI amount but the opposite party No.2 neither replied for the said letter nor adjusted the EMI amount. The opposite parties have failed to refund/adjust the EMI amount to the complainant till yet. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed  that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  make the payment of Rs.8,064/- along with interest @24% p.a., a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs. 3,300/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.   
Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the  separate written statement. Opposite party No.1 contending in the preliminary objections i.e. the answering opposite party is not necessary party in the present complaint as he has no concern with the complainant in any manner. On merits, it is contended that the answering opposite party has no concern with the loan or the installments, question of refund of any amount by the

                             Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….3…..
 answering opposite party does not arise. He further contended that the Hon’ble Forum has got no  jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the loan was advanced from Karnal and the installments were deposited by the complainant at Karnal. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
    Opposite party No.2 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complainant because the answering opposite party has no branch office at Jind and loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant at Karnal, where the area office of LIC Housing Finance Limited is situated. He further contended that there is no cause of action or part thereof has accured at Jind in any manner. He further taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is barred by limitation since the alleged entry pertains to 2008 and thereafter the same is shown to be brought into the knowledge by way of notice dated 7.8.2012 i.e. after lapse of period of 4 years and as such  complaint  is required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. On merits, it is contended that the complainant had obtained the loan from answering opposite party but he denied that agent Sunder Lal has not been arrayed as a party for checking the veracity of the contents of this para. So at this stage it is not admitted the contents that complainant has taken the loan through agent Sunder Lal. However, the factum of depositing the EMI twice of the month of November, 2008 has been denied for want of knowledge. 

            Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….4…..
Therefore, there is no deficiency in service against answering opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced  his own  affidavit  Ex. C-1, copy of cheque details Ex. C-2, copy of  repayment certificate Ex. C-3, copy of detail of pass-book Ex. C-4, postal receipt Ex. C-5, copy of application Ex. C-6, postal receipt Ex. C-7,  and copy of legal notice dated 7.8.2012 Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. P.K. Saxena, Manager Legal L.I.C. Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard the arguments of  Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The opposite parties have taken the objection that they had moved an application under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. But this Forum has not decided the application and passed the order that the application  shall be decided at the time of final arguments. Without going on the merit of the case, we are deciding the application under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act firstly. The Ld. counsel of opposite parties argued that the complainant had obtained the loan from LIC, H.F. Ltd., Karnal and there is no branch office situated at Jind nor the opposite party No.2 is doing the business at Jind. So this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. During the course of arguments, counsel for opposite party has placed on record the statement of  loan account of  complainant that they have reversed the entry of amount of Rs.8,064/- which was deposited twice 
                Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….5…..
by the complainant in the year 2008 and the same has been credited in the account of the complainant when they came to know about the above said mistake. In this way, we have sought out the main grievance of the complainant that nothing is remained against them and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  On this point, complainant counsel stated that although opposite party has reversed the entry in the loan account of the complainant in the month of march 2013 but they have reversed after period of 4 years i.e. 6.3.2013 whenever the amount has been debited in the year 2008 and complainant is entitled the interest on the amount which was used by the opposite party.  
 6.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant rebut the argument of the opposite party  on the point of jurisdiction that the complainant had taken the house loan from opposite party No.2 through its agent Sunder Lal vide loan account No.15007768 in the year 15.6.2007. Counsel for complainant argued that the agent Sunder Lal r/o Jind told the complainant that the EMI of November 2008 was pending  against him then the complainant deposited the cash amount of Rs.8064/- to the opposite party No.2 through the agent Sunder Lal. But when the complainant checked his PNB branch account, the EMI amount rs.8064/- was debited from the complainant’s account vide cheque No.317656 on 10.11.2008, so the EMI was deposited twice in the month of November, 2008. He further argued that the complainant never visited the Karnal office and all loan documents were fill-up at Jind which provided by agent Sunder Lal. Therefore, this Forum  is having the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

            Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….6…..
7.     The counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon that as per Section 11(2)(a ) (b) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-
(a) the opposite or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain or 
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or 
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
8.    In view of the above argument addressed  by the parties, it is observed that the complainant had obtained the loan from opposite party No.2 which is situated at Karnal and Agent having no authority to give the loan to the complainant. There is no branch office at Jind nor opposite party No.2 doing the business at Jind. Therefore, in light of  judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, we hold that this Forum have not territorial jurisdiction thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present
                Rohtash Kumar V/s LIC
                    ….7…..
 complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.  However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industiral Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to hand over the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining the photo copies of the same. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on:  15.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 8.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.    We have perused the file minutely and carefully. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant had purchased life insurance policy as mentioned above. The main  question involved in this complaint  whether the  complainant is entitled the accident benefit of the policy or not.
6.    We have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully placed on the file. As per the final report (Ex. OP-8) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the case titled State Vs Raja Ram etc. vide FIR No.119 dated 7.7.2013 under Section 148/149/302/307 read with section 25 of Arms Act husband of the complainant has been murdered by the accused  person i.e. Raja Ram etc. and Hon’ble  District & Sessions Judge, Jind has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove his charge under Sections 148/302/307 read with 25 of Arms 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …4…
Act against the accused. The counsel for the complainant argued that in view of the  above said judgment rendered by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, murder of the deceased is not proved meaning thereby death of the deceased is not a  natural death and he further argued as per the post-mortem report Ex. OP-13 deceased died due to bullets injury it is a accidental death so the complainant is entitled the accidental death of the policy. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Appeal No.380 of 2001 decided on 20.12.2001 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Lalitaben Pravinchandra Gohil decided by  Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad  and another Appeal No.FA15 of 2011 date of decision 29.9.2011 titled as Mala Deb (Choudhary) Vs. LIC of India and another decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura.  
7.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.1,54,616/- to the complainant on 15.10.2013 nothing is due against the opposite party and complainant has received the full and final payment as per received voucher  dated 15.10.2013 without protest as Ex. OP-4. He relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Haryana State Co-operative  Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 2013(3) CPC page 356 and Shree Balaji Woolen Mills (M/s) Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (3) CPC page 437. The counsel for the opposite party further argued that the accidental benefit is not 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …5…
covered and payable under the policy because Ram Singh deceased was murdered and case was registered under Section 148/149/307/302 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against the accused. He further argued that as per the copy of challan submitted by the police in the court as Ex. OP-8 and FIR Ex. OP-12 intention of the accused was very much clear to murder the insured so murder does not cover under the definition of accident and complainant is not entitled the accidental benefit as claimed by her in this complaint.  On this point counsel for respondent relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission case title Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs. Life Insurance Corporation decided on 26 May 2006 and Hon’ble National Commission  has mentioned in  per para 6 and 7 of the above said judgment as under:- 
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to go in the similar set of circumstances, in the case of Smt. Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurnce Co. Ltd. IV (2000) SLT 179 II (2000) CLT 192 (SC)II(2000) ACC 291(SC) so case No.289 para 9 of this judgment is relevant for our purpose, which is as follows:-
“In our opinion, if the document intention of the act of felony is the kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.”
    For our purpose, the important point to note is whether murder is an ‘accident’ would depend on the proximity of cause of such murder? 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …6…
Two points need to be noted in this regard. Firstly, there is no doubt that three criminal cases were filed against the decease/insured in 1996 and 1997 under I.P.C. Sections 427/336 as well as under Arms Act, 365,323 and 34, I.P.C. Sections 27/54/59 as also 397 case under section regarding theft of Cello Car. There is no disputing the fact that the deceased was acquitted in all these cases, but series of criminal cases filed against him as well as his killing by shooting him in the ear as also in the ribs, leaves us in no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accident murder. Even though, the murderer could not be traced in this case but the two points made above ,i.e., the long criminal record as also the places where wounds have been made by bullet, unless something points out to the contrary, in our view, it would be case of intentional killing, i.e., murder of deceased, and shall not fall within the term’accident’ by any stretch of argument in the fact and circumstances in this case.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this was anything else, other than intentional killing/murder simplicitor and hence does not fall within the ward ’accident’. The State Commission quite correct in not allowing the ‘double accident benefit’ as the deceased does not satisfy the condition of the policy to be entitled for deriving the benefits under the ‘double murder’ befit scheme.
Appeal has no merit, hence dismissed”.  
8.    We have gone through the judgment dated 16.7.2014 state Vs. Raja Ram etc. as passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Jind  
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …7…
Ex. C-4 it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove its charge under Sections 148/302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. But it is clear from the judgment that court has not given the finding that deceased Ram Singh has not been murdered. Hence, above mentioned judgment is not helpful to the complainant. 
8.    We have also gone through the pleading of the complainant we observe that as per contention of the complainant mentioned in the complaint that complainant does not prove nor alleged under what circumstances Ram Singh deceased died which may constitute the accidental death. The authorities (Supra) tendered by the Ld. Counsel for  complainant are not disputed but not identical in the facts and circumstances in the present case whereas the authorities (Supra) tendered by the opposite parties are fully applicable in the present case. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case so  the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 5.5.2016
                                  President,
    Member     Member                    District Consumer Disputes                                         Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

Birmati Vs. LIC
                
                    
Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv.for opposite party.  
                Arguments heard.  To come up on  5.5.2016 for orders.
                                        President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        3.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv.for opposite party.  
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                                    President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        5.5.2016