BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 252 of 2018
Date of Institution:5.4.2018
Date of Decision:12.2.2020
- Kulwinder Kaur widow of Late Sh. Malkiat Singh resident of House No. 168, Village Bal Sachander, PO Heir, Distt. Amritsar 91158-52096
- Prithamjot Singh minor son of Malkiat Singh through Kulwinder Kaur its mother resident of House No. 168, Village Bal Sachander, PO Heir, Distt. Amritsar
Complainants
Versus
- Life Insurance Corporation of India through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Amritsar
- Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager, Branch office Chheharta,Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Satbir Singh Sandhu,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.M.S.Bhatia, Advocate
Coram:
Sh.Charanjit Singh, President
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu,Member
Order dictated by:
Ms. Rachna Arora, Member
1. Present complaint has been filed by Kulwinder Kaur and Prithamjot Singh under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Malkiat Singh husband of complainant No.1 was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 472996235 commenced from 28.2.2010 for a term of 20 years by making half yearly premium of Rs. 15781/-. Husband of the complainant unfortunately shot dead on 27.5.2016 leaving behind complainant as his widow and Prithamjot as his minor son. FIR bearing No. 62 was got registered in PS Lapoke on 28.5.2016 and the trial is pending in the court of Sh. Harbans Singh Lekhi, Addl. Session Judge, Amritsar. The pendency of trial is no bar to release the remaining insured amount to the complainant. The complainant served a letter on opposite party for releasing the balance amount which was replied by the opposite party on 5.6.2017 and made a demand of copy of FIR, PIR and order of session court. The complainant has already provided copy of FIR, PIR to the opposite party and the trial is still pending. It is not the case of the opposite party that policy holder has committed suicide. Had there been any such case then the position would have been different. But the contents of the FIR clearly shows that he is shot dead as such to withheld the amount against the policy in question shows the arbitrary attitude and behavior of the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party had already made the payment of Rs. 6 lacs to the complainant but now the opposite party is not releasing the balance amount to the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice on the opposite party on 2.2.2018 but despite the receipt of notice, the opposite party has not paid the amount of double accident claim and replied the notice and have taken the same stand which was taken on 5.6.2017. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to pay the double accident claim benefits to the complainant ;
(b) Opposite party be also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- as well as compensation of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant ;
(c ) Opposite party be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20000/- to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the opposite parties had already paid the basic sum assured with accrued bonus of Rs. 6,04,563/- under policy bearing No. 472996235 to the complainant in respect of death claim of Sh. Malkeet Singh, the deceased life assured. But for consideration of claim of DAB, the complainant was advised to submit copy of court decision as the DLA had allegedly died in gun shot fire at marriage function on 27.5.2016. But so far no court decision has been supplied by the complainant, hence, the present complaint for claim of DAB is not maintainable. It was submitted that DAB is to be granted as per terms of policy where death is caused due to outward, violent and visible means which is to be decided by the competent court of law. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Smt.Kulwinder Kaur tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of premium receipt Ex.C-2, copy of renewal premium receipt Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 5.6.2017 Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-6, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C-7 and closed her evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.M.S.Bhatia,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Manager Legal Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of cancelled death claim paid Ex.OP1,2/1, documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7 may be read as part and parcel of evidence of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that husband of complainant No.1 was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 472996235 commenced from 28.2.2010 for a term of 20 years and the sum assured is Rs. 5,00,000/-, copy of policy is Ex.C-2 on record. The case of the complainant is that her husband unfortunately shot dead on 27.5.2016 and in this regard FIR bearing No. 62 was got registered at PS Lapoke on 28.5.2016 and the trial is pending in the court of Sh. Harbans Singh Lekhi, Addl. Session Judge, Amritsar. The opposite party had already made the payment of Rs. 6 lacs to the complainant but failed to release the balance amount to the complainant. The pendency of trial is no bar to release the remaining insured amount to the complainant. In this regard the complainant served a letter on opposite party for releasing the balance amount which was replied by the opposite party on 5.6.2017 and made a demand of copy of FIR, PIR and order of session court. The complainant has already provided copy of FIR, PIR to the opposite party and the trial is still pending. The complainant also served a legal notice on the opposite party on 2.2.2018 but despite the receipt of notice, the opposite party has not paid the amount of double accident claim and replied the notice and have taken the same stand which was taken on 5.6.2017. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the act of the opposite party in withholding the balance amount, amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
7. On the other hand Ld.counsel for the opposite parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the opposite parties had already paid the basic sum assured with accrued bonus of Rs. 6,04,563/- under policy bearing No. 472996235 to the complainant in respect of death claim of Sh. Malkeet Singh, the deceased life assured. But for consideration of claim of DAB, the complainant was advised to submit copy of court decision as the DLA had allegedly died in gun shot fire at marriage function on 27.5.2016. But so far no court decision has been supplied by the complainant, hence, the present complaint for claim of DAB is not maintainable. It was submitted that DAB is to be granted as per terms of policy where death is caused due to outward, violent and visible means which is to be decided by the competent court of law.
8. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no dispute with regard to issuance of policy to the husband of the complainant bearing policy No.472996235 commencing from 28.2.2010 for a term of 20 years . It is also not disputed that husband of the complainant died on 27.5.2016 . It is also not disputed that the opposite parties have made the payment of Rs. 6 lacs to the complainant. The only case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not paid the double accident claim for which the husband of the complainant was entitled as per terms and conditions of the policy. However, the only plea of the opposite parties is that for consideration of claim of DAB, the complainant was advised to submit copy of court decision as the DLA had allegedly died in Gun shot fire at marriage function on 27.5.2016. But we are not agreed with this plea of the opposite parties as the trial before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Amritsar is regarding the sentence about the criminal liability and there should be no hitch on the part of the opposite parties to with-held the benefit as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is not the plea of the opposite parties that the husband of the complainant committed suicide and had there been any such plea the position would have been different as the opposite parties straightway repudiated the whole claim and payment of sum assured with accrued bonus shows that the opposite parties by admitting that the husband of the complainant died due to Gun shot which was accidently occurred in some marriage and not committed suicide. As the husband of the complainant died accidently due to gun shot , as such complainants are entitled to the benefits as per terms and conditions of the policy which included double accident death claim.
9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to pay double accident claim benefit as per the policy. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum (Charanjit Singh)
President
Dated: 12.2.2020
(Rachna Arora) (Jatinder Singh Pannu)
Member Member
