BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.64 of 2017

Date of Instt. 06.03.2017

Date of Decision: 07.03.2017

Anita wife of Sh. Pirthi Lal (missing since declared dead), presently resident of 858, Phase-IV, Mohali, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Model Town Road, Jalandhar.-144001 through its Senior Divisional Manager

2. Manager (Claims), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Model Town Road, Jalandhar.-144001

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. KC Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that Sh. Pirthi Lal, Life assured (since declared missing) has taken policy bearing No.131701259 dated 26.12.2002 for sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- and policy No.131540282 dated 22.01.2002 for sum assured Rs.2,00,000/- from Branch Office and complainant was appointed nominee of these policy by the life assured. The complainant is the wife of the life assured Sh. Pirthi Lal. The life assured disappeared/missing since 15.04.2004 and intimation to this effect was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. In response to the intimation of disappearance and missing of the life assured, as per instructions and advice of opposite parties, Branch Office, for paying premium regular and both the policy are liable to pay to the beneficiary i.e. complainant. As per the provision of Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, a decree declaring of Presumption of Death of Pirthi Lal son of Sh. Ram Asra having not been seen and heard from last 15.04.2004 for the period more than 7 years was granted by the Court of Sh. Gursher Singh, Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Jalandhar, in Civil Suit No.CS-50588/13, date of institution 30.05.2011 and date of decision 20.02.2016, titled Smt. Anita Versus General Public. Pursuance to the decree of Civil Court, his death was got registered with the Registrar, Birth and Death, Jalandhar in its record. Certified copy of death certificate with date of issue 12.04.2016 along with prescribed Claim Form and all relevant documents pertaining thereto were submitted by the complainant under both policies to Policy Servicing Branch Office. The claim by death under both the policies have been paid by the Policy Servicing Branch Office but has not refunded excessive premium paid and adjusted w.e.f. 21.05.2011. The complainant made written request vide letter dated 25.04.2016, dated 20.05.2016 and also dated 20.06.2016 which were neither acknowledged nor any action taken thereon. Thereafter the OP issued a letter dated 06.05.2016 in respect of only one policy wherein it has been mentioned that “we received no premium under the said policy beyond the presumed date of death and no further payment is due under the policy” but other policy No.131540282 has been ignored. On the face of it, that letter of opposite party No.2 is totally wrong and absolutely incorrect wholly misconceived and apparently based on frail facts and not on record the premium history. The opposite party No.2 fell in error and fallacy in interpreting the statutory presumption arising under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, the date of death of life assured against the settled law and clear binding mandate and institutions contained in its manual for Policy Servicing Department, which inter-alia at page No. 74-75 Para No.23.2 titled Presumption of Death of missing person, stipulated that the date of death should be taken as the date of plaint or application. The date of institution of Civil Suit is 30.05.2011 and the death should have been presumed from 30.05.2011 but erroneously and perversely 20.02.2016 taken by opposite party No.2 and mentioned in letter dated 06.05.2016. Opposite Party No.2 proceeded presuming date of death 20.05.2016 though not permissible and has not shown any reason there for. The presumed death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act could be ascribed is the date when suit was filed. There is not even a remotest hint in the said letter the basis for presuming date of death from the date of decision and granting of decree by Civil Court and as such the complainant is entitled to return of extra premium, paid after declared presumed to be dead w.e.f. 30.05.2011, even legal notice was served but no action was taken by the OPs and then this complaint is filed with the prayer that the OP's be directed to return extra premium for total amount of Rs.1,04,680/- received under both policies with interest @ 12% per annum and further compensation be awarded to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2. This complaint is put before us for admission purpose and after going through the contents of the complaint, it reveals that the complainant previously filed a Civil Suit bearing No.50588/13 date of institution 30.05.2011decided on 20.02.2016 titled as Smt. Anita and Others Vs. General Public and Others that suit was a suit for declaration and wherein the relief sought by the complainant Anita and others is to declare that Pirthi Lal has not been heard and seen for the last more than 7 years and as such he presumed to be dead and further complainant and other legal heirs are entitled for all movable and immovable property including pension, gratuity, provident fund and all other service benefits from the defendants No.2 and 3.

3. In the aforesaid Civil Suit the complainant and her kids has omitted the relief to get the amount of insurance policy or any related amount to the insurance policy. So, according to Order 2 Rule-2 of Civil Procedure Code, the instant complaint is not maintainable for the said relief which is omitted in the aforesaid Civil Suit, so this complaint is not maintainable for the omitted relief.

4. Apart from above, I have also gone through the findings of the Civil Courts Judgments and find that the Civil Court has not given any finding in regard date of death of Pirthi Lal husband of the complainant i.e. 30.05.2011 if so then the OPs has rightly taken the presumption in regard to death of deceased insured from the date of the decision of the Civil Suit i.e. 20.02.2016. So, from this angle the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

5. In the light of above detailed discussion, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant for admission of this complaint and therefore the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

6. Copies of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

07.03.2017 Member President