Delhi

North East

CC/41/2018

Paramjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 41/18

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur

W/o Late Shri Jagtar Singh

R/o:- H. No. 146, Murgi Farm Wali Gali

Shibbanpura, Ghaziabad

U.P.-201001

 

 

 

 

Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

Life Insurance Corporation of India

11M, Jaina Kunj

Shahdara, Delhi-110032

 

 

           Opposite Party

 

           

              DATE OF INSTITUTION:

       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:

               DATE OF DECISION      :

23.02.2018

19.05.2022

07.06.2022

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

  1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant’s deceased husband Late Shri Jagatar Singh had obtained Life Insurance Policy bearing no. 121949890 dated 18.07.2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said life insurance police was effective from 20.07.2002. The Complainant was nominee of her husband in the said insurance policy. The late husband of Complainant’s had deposited installments of Rs. 3,255/- till 28.03.2006. The late husband of Complainant’s had deposited total sum of Rs. 22,828/-.
  2. Late Shri Jagtar Singh i.e. husband of the Complainant was a truck driver by profession. Complainant stated that on 27.03.2006 her late husband with his truck Bearing No. HR 36-6576 went to Gauhati from Sahibabad, Ghaziabad along with Shri Shambu Kushwah conductor but Complainant’s late husband did not come back till 15.04.2006. The Complainant lodged missing report of her husband on 15.04.2006 at P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad. On 15.01.2007 Complainant lodged an FIR of kidnapping against truck conductor Shri Shambhu Kushwah and his associate Shri Hariom Kushwa at P.S. Sihani Gate. In this case court held guilty Shambu Khuswah of kidnaping Complainant’s late husband and sentenced him 10 year imprisonment on 14.07.2010.
  3. Complainant’s husband Shri Jagtar Singh has been declared dead by Hon’ble Court of Add. Civil Judge on 16.12.2017 and on 24.01.2018 the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad has issued a death certificate of deceased  Late Shri Jagtar Singh. It is alleged by the Complainant that as per the policy conditions, in the event of death of the policy holder Rs. 1,00,000/- was payable to his nominee and she is nominee of policy holder. It is alleged by the Complainant that she had visited the Opposite Party’s office along with her deceased husband’s insurance policy, court judgment, receipt of installment paid and claim application till March 2013 but Opposite Party did not give the receiving for the same. Complainant had sent a legal notice to Opposite Party on 12.04.2013 by registered post.
  4. Complainant has prayed issue direction to Opposite Party to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as insurance policy claim, accidental claim of  Rs. 1,00,000/- and bonus & other benefits of Rs. 1,00,000/-. She has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial loss. She has also prayed for Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.
  5. Prior to filing of this complaint the Complainant had filed her complaint in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad. But that complaint was dismissed as withdrawn due to territorial jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to the Complainant by the said Forum to file the complaint in the Forum of proper territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, Complainant filed her complaint in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, East District, Delhi. The said complaint dismissed as withdrawn on account of territorial jurisdiction. The Complainant has filed copy of order dated 20.02.2018 of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, East District, Delhi.
  6. Complainant has attached copy of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad order dated 25.01.2018, copy of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East District, Delhi order dated 20.02.2018, copy of insurance policy, copy of premium receipts, copy of Hon’ble Add. Session Court/Fast Track Court order dated 14.07.2010 whereby Shri Shambu Kushwa was convicted for kidnapinng of Late Shri Jagtar Singh, copy of the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by Virek Aggarwal, Add. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ghaziabad and copy of death certificate dated 24.01.2018 issued by Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad.

Case of the Opposite Party

  1. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the present complaint is filed by the Complainant with sole intention to harass the Opposite Party. It is alleged that the Complainant has not provided/submitted any document regarding the death of her husband or any order. Opposite Party denied the averments of the Complainant that she has supplied or provided the requisite documents to the Opposite Party. It is alleged that Opposite Party has not received any legal notice. Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party

  1. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

  1. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

  1. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of  Ms. Diya Sinha, Manager of Opposite Party at 25, K.G. Marg, 4th Floor, New Delhi-110001. In his affidavit she has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in its written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

  1. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
  2. The case of the Complainant is that her husband had obtained a Life Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party. The said policy was purchased on 18.07.2002 and was effective from 20.07.2002. The risk covered was of  Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is her case that her husband used to pay instalment of  Rs. 3,255/- and her husband paid sum of Rs. 22,828/- in total to the Opposite Party. The last instalment paid by the husband of the Complainant was for Rs. 3,255/- on 28.03.2006. The perusal of the said payment receipt issued by the Opposite Party shows that the next instalment was due in the month of July 2006. As per 10-2 (b) Conditions and Privileges of Life Insurance Policy of the deceased Jagtar Singh is read as under:

Death of Life Assured: to pay an additional sum equal to the Sum Assured under the policy. If the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent, and visible means and such injury shall within 180 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the Life Assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of this policy, together with any such additional sums payable under other policies on the life of the Life Assured shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-.”

 

  1. The case of Opposite Party is that the civil death of Late Shri Jagtar Singh was declared by Civil Court Ghaziabad on 16.12.2017 and on that date the insurance policy of Jagtar Singh was not valid because after payment in March 2006, no premium was paid by Jagtar Singh and hence policy was invalid on the date when the civil court declared the civil death of the Complainant’s husband. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant did not provide any document to the Opposite Party in respect of her claim. It is also case of the Opposite Party that no legal notice was issued by Complainant to Opposite Party. It is also the case of the Opposite Party as per Rule 23.2 of the presumption of death missing person (Rules of LIC). The policy was invalid for the reason that no premium had been paid since July 2006.
  2.  The deceased husband of the Complainant went missing and missing report was lodged by her in police station on 15.04.2006 at P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, an FIR regarding kidnapping of Jagtar Singh lodged on 15.01.2007 at P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad. The Fast Track Court in Ghaziabad convicted the conductor Shambhu Kushwaha and sentenced on 14.07.2010. The Complainant had filed Civil Suit at Ghaziabad which was decided by Shri Virek Aggarwal on 16.12.2017.  The judgment of Civil Court shows that it was held that Complainant had successfully proved that her husband was not heard off after 27.03.2006. On the other hand it is not the case of the Opposite Party that the husband of the Complainant was alive. Therefore, under these circumstances as the husband of the Complainant heard off after 27.03.2006. Therefore, there was no question of depositing the premium by Jagtar Singh. It is not the case of the Opposite Party that the husband of the Complainant was not dead or was alive after 27.03.2006. Hence, in our considered opinion the defence taken by the Opposite Party cannot be accepted.
  3. In view of the above discussion, the Complaint is allowed. It is ordered that Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh only) (Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of  policy and Rs. 1,00,000/- as per 10-2 (b) Conditions and Privileges of Life Insurance Corporation of India) to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till the recovery of the said amount. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) is awarded to the Complainant on account of harassment and mental agony. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) is also awarded towards the litigation charges. This amount of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) shall be payable along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of order till recovery of the said amount.   
  4. Order announced on 07.06.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)

          Member

 

 

     (Surinder Kumar Sharma)

President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.