DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 280 of 19.7.2017

                                      Decided on: 21.1.2021

Paramjit Kaur aged about 36 years w/o Late Sh.Sarabjit Singh R/o village Sadhrour, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, MohinderGanj Road, Rajpura, District Patiala through its Branch Manager, Paramjit Kaur.
2. Regional Manager LIC of India, Mall Road, Baradari, Patiala.
3. Central Office 5^th Floor, West Wing, Yogakshema, Jeewan Bhima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi, counsel for OPs.     

ORDER

          JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Paramjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Life Corporation of India and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) .
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that her husband Sarabjit Singh, since deceased had taken two policies bearing Nos. 163691554 and 161921526 from OPs  and paid all the installments till his death.
3. It is averred that Sarabjit Singh was a truck driver.On 4.7.2009, he was driving tanker No.HR-37B-8269, which fell into Chandra river Mooling Bridge 8 KM away from Keylong(HP) and FIR No.44 dated 5.7.2009 U/s 279,304-A IPC  was registered with P.S.Keylong in this regard.
4. It is averred that as per police investigation, Sarabjit Singh was presumed to be dead because his dead body could not traced out due to fast flow of river water. Said news was also published in the newspaper.
5. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant being his nominee approached OP No.1 for releasing full maturity amount. It is averred that the officials of OPs advised her to file Civil Suit for getting decree of civilly dead of Sarabjit Singh and also advised her to not to deposit further installments of the said policies. Accordingly complainant filed civil suit and got decree from Civil Court, Rajpura and her husband Sarabjit Singh was declared civilly dead.Thereafter complainant again approached OPs for disbursement of full maturity amount of said two polices but OPs instead of paying full maturity amount of policy No.161921526 of Rs.50,000/- transferred only Rs.35000/- in the bank account of complainant and did not pay a single penny for the second policy No.163691554 of Rs.1,00,000/-.The complainant time and again approached the OPs for making the payment of full maturity amount of this policy. She also got sent legal notice dated 24.3.2017 upon the OPs in this regard but of no avail and OPs flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused harassment, mental agony and tension to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to pay full maturity amount of both the policies alongwith Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation including Rs.11000/-as litigation expenses.
6. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the written reply preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the OPs have already settled the claim of the complainant by paying paid-up value under  policy No.161921526 i.e. the policy which was old and had run almost for 9 years and submitted that no amount has been paid under policy No.163691554 as the date of commencement of this policy was 28.5.2017 and had run for just two years.
7. It is further submitted that no premium under both the polices have been paid after 2009.It is admitted that legal notice dated 24.3.2017 was received and the same was replied vide reply dated 3.8.2017.Further the OPs raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is barred by  limitation; that no cause of action has been accrued to the complainant to file this complaint and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint.
8. On merits, it is admitted that Sarabjit Singh since deceased had taken aforesaid two policies from the OPs.It is further submitted that premiums under both the policies were paid till 5/2009.It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant approached them and they advised her to take declaration decree of civilly dead of her husband but she was not advised to not to deposit further premiums of the policies because as per rules and regulations of the OPs and the terms and conditions of the policies in question, no payment of claim could be made in case policies are not maintained by paying regular premiums and the nominee has to maintain the policy by paying regular premiums till he/she gets declaratory decree from court for declaring the LA as civilly dead because till the date of decree the persons is considered to be alive.Further the OPs have reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections and after denying all other averments made in the complaint have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In evidence the complainant tendered her affidavit, Ex.CA, affidavit of Smt.Swaranjit Kaur, Ex.CB alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Ms. J.P.K.Minhas, Manager (L&HPF) LIC of India alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that Sarabjit Singh was a truck driver and on 4.7.2009 said Sarabjit Singh was driving tanker No.HR-37B-8269, which fell  into Chandra river Mooling bridge 8 KM away from Keylong. The ld. counsel further argued that FIR No.44 was registered on 5.7.2009 under Section 279,304-A IPC in this regard. The ld. counsel further argued that as per the FIR all the occupants of the tanker were presumed to be dead in the said accident because their bodies could not be found due to fast flow of the water of the river. The ld. counsel further argued that the news in this regard was also published in the news paper. The ld. counsel has further argued that Sarabjit Singh had taken two policies. One is 161921526 and the other is 163691554 from the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant being widow and nominee was entitled to the maturity amount of the above said polices and accordingly she approached the OPs for the maturity amount. The ld. counsel further argued that the officials of OP no.1 advised her for approaching civil court for getting decree of civilly dead declaration of her husband. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant filed a civil suit and got decree from Ld. Civil Judge, Rajpura. The ld. counsel further argued after getting decree complainant approached OPs for disbursal of the amount but the OPs transferred only Rs.35,000/-on account of policy No. 161921526 instead of full amount. The ld. counsel further argued that not even a single amount has been paid for the 2^nd policy which was for Rs.one lac. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant also got served legal notice but no amount has been paid so the complaint be allowed.
13. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs have argued that OPs have settled the claim of the policy No.161921526 and amount has been credited. The ld. counsel further argued that no amount has been paid  for the 2^nd policy as the same was commenced on 28.5.2007 and had run just for two years and as such this policy had not acquired paid up value.The ld.counsel further argued that no premium of the policy has been paid after 2009.The ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the citationL.I.C.of India Vs. Anuradha decided on 26.3.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and prayed that complaint be dismissed.
14. To prove this case Paramjit Kaur has tendered her affidavit,Ex.CA and she has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.CB is the affidavit of  Panch Swaranjit Kaur, Ex.C1 is the copy of policy which was taken on August,2007. It was for Rs.one lac. Ex.C2 is the policy of Rs.50,000/- regarding which amount of Rs.35000/- has been paid. Ex.C3 is the copy of FIR. Ex.C4 is the copy of police report, Ex.C5 is copy of legal notice,Ex.C6 is postal receipt, Ex.C7 is the copy of judgment passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura dated 15.2.2016.
15. On behalf of OPs Ms.J.P.K.Minhas has tendered her affidavit Ex.OP1 and she has deposed as per their defence.Ex.OP1 is the copy of policy for Rs.50,000/-which has been paid, Ex.OP2 is the copy of policy for Rs.1,00,000/- which has not been paid.Ex.OP4 is receipt of amount vide which Rs.35,100/- has been paid,Ex.OP5 is reply to legal notice.
16. Admittedly Sarabjit Singh deceased had got two policies from the OPs, one is Ex.C2 of Rs.50,000/- regarding which Rs.35000/- has been paid and the 2^nd policy is Ex.C1 of Rs.1,00,000/-.It was life insurance policy of LIC regarding which no amount has been paid. This amount was rejected because  as per the OPs no premium was paid after 2009.
17. As per FIR, Ex.C3 which was registered on 5.7.2009 with P.S.Keylong that one tanker No.HR-37B- 8269 fell into the river .It is mentioned in the  FIR that driver and conductor might have been died in the accident and they have been drowned in the water.There is report,Ex.C5 of police official,it is mentioned in the report that on 4/5.7.2009 tanker No.HR-37B- 8269 met with an accident at mooling bridge and fell into Chandra river regarding which FIR under Section 279, 304  had been registered. This tanker was driven by Sarabjit Singh s/o Ram Charan resident of Majri Sadhror Police post Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura , District Patiala and the conductor Gurwinder Singh was sitting and due to heavy water in the river both of them might have been died.
18. So it is clear that accident took place of the tanker and fell into the Chandra river on mooling bridge and it is mentioned in the FIR, Ex.C3 and report Ex.C4 that both driver Sarabjit Singh and conduct Gurwinder Singh might have been died in the said accident.
19. After seven years of this occurrence in the year 2016 a civil suit was filed by the LRs of Sarabjit Singh and suit was decreed  vide judgment Ex.C7 and Sarabjit Singh was declared as civilly dead. The OPs have placed reliance upon the judgment L.I.C.of India Vs. Anuradha passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but the facts of this case are distinguishable with the facts of the present case as in the present case, as per FIR registered on 5.7.2009 with P.S.Keylong, which is Ex.C3, it is clearly mentioned that one tanker HR-37B-8269 fell into river Chandra and both driver and conductor have suspected to have been died in the said accident. So FIR was registered and there is police report, Ex.C4 confirming the contents of the FIR to be true. So complainant being illiterate having no knowledge to deposit LIC premium when Sarabjit Singh died on 4.7.2009, so the premium cannot be paid. So the facts of the judgment L.I.C.of India Vs. Anuradha (supra)  are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. Admittedly, as per the pleadings of the OPs no premium was paid after 2009. So as one policy has been settled regarding the policy of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35000/- have been paid but no payment with regard to the 2^nd policy No.163691554 for Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid. So when Sarabjit Singh died on 4.7.2009 and was insured with the OPs for Rs.one lac vide policy Ex.C1, so LIC is duty bound to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant .
21. So due to our above discussion the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- of the policy No. 163691554 alongwith interest @6% per annum from 5.7.2009 till payment. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs  of litigation.  

Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:21.1.2021       

                   Y.S.Matta       Vinod Kumar Gulati               Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                    Member                 Member                                  President