DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 411 of 11.10.2018

                                      Decided on:     10.8.2021

1. Jasmeet Kaur wd/o Late Sh.Paramjit Singh aged 40 years
2. Gurkirat Singh S/o Late Sh. Paramjit Singh aged23 years
3. Jasdeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Paramjit Singh aged18 years

All residents of H.No.02, Urban Estate Phase-II, Patiala-147001, Punjab

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Manager, S.C.O.8-9,Ground Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Bedi, counsel for the OP.                                

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Jasmeet Kaur and others (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. At the outset, it is submitted that the ld. counsel for the complainants vide his statement dated 28.7.2021 has withdrawn the claim against Jasmeet Kaur, complainant and also on 6.8.2021, the complainant No.1 Smt.Jasmeet Kaur herself has made the statement that she has relinquished the claim and the entire amount in equal shares may be made to complainants No.2&3.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant No.1 is the widow and nominee of late Sh.Paramjit Singh, who had purchased policy No.162093324 for a sum of Rs.5lacs for the period from 28.10.2001 to 31.10.2026 on his life and had paid up to date premium @ of Rs.24860/-yearly to the OP. It is averred that complainants No.2&3 are the sons of the deceased and are only  his legal heirs.
4. It is averred that said Paramjit Singh died an accidental death on 23.3.2014 and the police station Kotwali Patiala falsely implicated the complainant by registering FIR No.61 dated 24.3.2014 against the complainant and one Sh.Preet Mohinder Singh S/o Hardarshan Singh and both of them tried U/s-302,120B of Indian Penal Court alongwith Sections 25&27 of Arms Act by the court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. It is further averred that the court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala acquitted the complainant from all charges leveled and framed against her vide judgment dated 24.10.2016 and no appeal has been filed by the State against the said judgment which has thus become final.
5. It is further averred that the deceased was also having life policy of the OP bearing No.164667010 and the claim of this policy was settled and paid to the complainant without raising any objection. It is further averred that the complainant lodged the claim of the policy in question with the OP who demanded documents and compilation of various formalities which were completed by the complainant but the OP instead of settling the claim of the policy in question wrote a letter dated 23.9.2017 with regard to policy bearing No.164667010.The said letter was replied vide registered cover dated 17.10.2017 but the OP failed to settle the claim inspite of various visits to their office. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5lacs the sum assured, Rs.5lacs double accidental benefit, bonus to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% from the date of death i.e. 23.3.2014 till realization and costs and damages  to the tune of Rs.20,000/- totaling Rs.12,20,000/-.
6. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OP who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In the reply preliminary objections have been raised to the extent that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the Hon’ble Commission; that the complaint is pre-mature and deserves dismissal with costs as  criminal case No.CRM-7652-2017 alongwith CRM-A-492-MA of 2017 (O&M) against judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by the court of Ld.ADJ, Patiala is pending against the complainant before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab. It is further submitted that the life assured had taken total of 7 policies on his life and got payment of two policies. The complainant also approached District Forum and Permanent Lok Adalat having claimed the money under other five policies by filing different five complaints. It is further submitted that in the present case the life assured was murdered and as per settled case laws by Apex Court, in case of murder the accident benefit is not payable. It is further averred that sister of the deceased life assured has already filed criminal revision bearing No.CRM-7652-2017 which has been admitted by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Further preliminary objections have been raised that no cause of action has been accrued to the complainants to file the present complaint and the complainants are not consumers.
7. On merits, It is admitted that the complainant was acquitted but it is denied any appeal/revision is not pending. It is alleged that the complainants are not entitled to any claim as alleged in the present complaint. Further the OP has 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.
8. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant Jasmeet Kaur alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajeev Malhora, Manager L & HPF, LIC of India alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, accordingly.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant no.1 is the widow of Paramjit Singh who has purchased the policy of Rs.5lac  for the period from 28.10.2001 to 31.10.2026 and the premium was Rs.24860/-.The ld. counsel further argued that Paramjit Singh had died an accidental death on 23.3.2014 and FIR No.61 on 24.3.2014 was registered against the complainant and Preet Mohinder Singh but both of them were acquitted. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainants lodged the claim against the policy but the amount has not been given to them. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP is liable to pay the sum assured of Rs.5lac plus accidental benefit of Rs.5lac and bonus to the tune of Rs.2lac alongwith interest & 9% and  also compensation of Rs.20,000/- thus they are liable to pay total amount of Rs.12,20,000/-.The ld. counsel has relied upon the citations Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India III(2008)CPJ 120(NC), Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Balram Mulchandani 2019(2)CLT 177, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudha Rani & Ors. IV(2017)CPJ 116(NC),  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pravin Krushna Takari 1(2018) CPJ 80 (NC), Subhash Mehta NRI Vs. Centurion Bank Ltd. & Ors. 1(2018) CPJ 82(NC), M/s Crystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others 2020(1)CL
    T 605.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that it was not an accidental death, it was a murder, although the accused were acquitted but the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the appeal was admitted on 22.8.2017 vide order Ex.OP4.The ld. counsel for the OP has argued that as per the policy, the complainant is not entitled to any accidental  claim. The ld. counsel further argued that the appeal is continuation of the suit and till the matter has not been decided, it can not be said that the death is accidental death or a murder. The ld. counsel has relied upon the citations Smt.Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2000(2)ACJ 801,  Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Vandana First Appeal No.1810 of 2009 decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 1.6.2012. The ld. counsel further argued that as the appeal is pending so the complaint be adjourned sine die or be dismissed.
13.       To prove this case, the complainant Jasmeet Kaur has tendered her affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint. She has deposed that Paramjit Singh had died in an accident on 23.3.2014. Ex.C1 is the judgment passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 24.10.2016 vide which Jasmeet Kaur was acquitted  in the case filed under Sections 302 and 120-B Indian Penal Code and Sections 25&27 Arms Act,Ex.C2 is the judgment dated 4.1.2018 passed by the then President of this Commission , whereby the complaint filed by the    complainant against United India Insurance Company was allowed, Ex.C3 is the letter written by LIC to Jasmeet Kaur, Ex.C4 is the Aadhar card of Jasdeep Singh, Ex.C5 is the Aadhar card of Gurkirat Singh,Ex.C6 is the Aadhar card of Jasmeet Kaur,Ex.C7 is death certificate of Baljit Kaur, Ex.C8 is the death certificate of Gurinder Singh,Ex.C9  is the death certificate of Paramjit Singh,Ex.C10 is the status report of policy No.162093324.
14. On behalf of OP Sh.Rajeev Malhotra, Manager L & HPF has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written version,Ex.OP1 is the policy, Ex.OP2 is proposal form, Ex.OP3 is document of legal heirs , Ex.OP4    is the judgment of Hon’ble High Court where the appeal has been pending.   
15. Ex.C1 is the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which  Preet Mohinder Singh and Jasmeet Kaur were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt on 24.10.2016.  An appeal has been filed by Jaswinder Kaur Gandhi against the judgment in the Hon’ble High Court and the appeal is pending and the appeal was admitted by double bench of Hon’ble High Court and OPs No.2&3 were summoned by way of bailable warrants.  So it is clear that appeal has been filed and the same is pending in the Hon’ble High Court.
16. Jasmeet Kaur and both other filed a complaint before this Forum on 21.2.2017 against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and that was allowed on 4.1.2018. Ex.C7 is death certificate of Baljit Kaur.His husband name is Surinder Singh.Ex.C8 is the death certificate of Surinder Singh,Ex.C9 is death certificate of Paramjit Singh whose  date of death is 22.3.2014.
17. On behalf of the OPs Sh.Rajeev Malhotra ,Manager LIC has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written version. He has also revealed that   revision petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court against judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.Ex.OP1 is important document on the file .This is a policy which was taken on 28.10.2001 and was to be matured on 28.10.2026.It was for Rs.5lac in the name of Paramjit Singh. In the policy it is written WITHOUT ACCIDENT BENEFIT but in the policy in the end specific provision is mentioned that there is guaranteed addition of Rs.75/- per thousand. Sum assured will be added  to the policy at the end of  each policy anniversary and will be payable  when the sum assured becomes payable.As this policy continued for 13 years till Paramjit Singh died / or murdered and taking into consideration the special provision, the amount of Rs.4,87,500/- more is liable  to be payable by the LIC to the complainants.
18. Although the accused were acquitted by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,Patiala but still the appeal is pending in the Hon’ble High Court and there was direct allegation of murder against Jasmeet Kaur for murdering her husband alongwith one Preet Mohinder Singh.Moreover, the appeal against the order is pending before the Hon’ble High Court ,so the complainants are not entitled for accidental benefit as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Smt.Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ex.OP2 is the proposal form. Ex.OP3 is document of Life Insurance company.In this document it is mentioned that ‘a person who commits murder is disqualified from becoming heir of the property of the person murdered. But this is not applicable to this case as the complainant No.1 has herself withdrawn his complaint. Moreover, she is already acquitted by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala although the appeal is pending.
19. An application for dismissal of complaint was filed on 28.2.2019 by the OPs but on 31.5.2019 Sh.Amit Bedi, Advocate has given the statement that without prejudice to the right of the OPs to raise the objections in the written version, and did not press the application.       
20. So in view of our above discussion the complaint is partly allowed and as it was not an accident, so complainants No.2&3 are entitled to the amount of Rs.5lac and also amount of Rs.4,87,500/- as bonus total Rs.9,87,500/- in equal shares alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of death of Paramjit Singh i.e. 22.3.2014 till its realization. No order as to costs.  

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:10.8.2021.

                                               Y.S.Matta           Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                   President