DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 273 of 12-09-07<br /> Decided on : 15-01-08<br /> <br /> Pushpinder Kaur Wd/o Parminder Singh R/o Village Joga Nand now R/o C/o Baldev Singh House No. 2455 Near New Light Hotel, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.Jasmel Kaur W/o Sh. Gurdev Singh R/o Village Joga Nand, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for opposite party No. 1.<br /> Sh. H S Dhanoa, Advocate, for opposite party No. 2.<br /> O R D E R<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Parminder Singh S/o Gurdev Singh was the husband of the complainant. He had purchased one policy No. 300340342 on 1.7.2005. Policy was issued for a sum of Rs. 1.00 Lac with profits + double accident benefits. Complainant was declared as nominee. On 18.5.07, Parminder Singh was murdered by Ram Singh S/o Sarban Singh, R/o Karar Wala, Bathinda at Dhobiana Road, Bathinda, by way of firing a shot at him with fire arm. Criminal case with FIR No. 259 dated 18.5.07 was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. Dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Intimation regarding his death was given to opposite party No. 1 through letter dated 24.5.07 and death claim was registered. No reply of this letter was given by opposite party No. 1. On 6.8.07, another letter was sent to opposite party No. 1. Original policy, attested copy of FIR and post mortem report etc., were also sent. After 2-1/2 months after intimation about the death of Parminder Singh was given, opposite party No. 1 sent Forms No. 3783 (R) and 3785 (R) with letter dated 9.8.07. It is averred by the complainant that it was the duty of opposite party No. 1 to send necessary forms immediately after receiving intimation, but it failed to do so. Forms were filled in by her. They were sent to opposite party No.1. Till today, claim amount has not been paid. Vide letter dated 9.8.07, opposite party No. 1 demanded Form No. 25-35 although it was not required. Another letter dated 23.8.07 was issued by her to the opposite party No. 1 demanding the claim. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 is calling for unnecessary documents and is sitting over the claim for the last about four months. Hence there is deficiency in service on its part. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to opposite party No. 1 to pay the entire claim amount i.e. Rs. 2.00 Lacs, double accidental benefit alongwith Bonus, interest and benefits and interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of death till payment, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pains and sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complaint is not maintainable without obtaining succession certificate; it has not yet decided the claim of accident lodged by the complainant and complaint is false and frivolous. Mother of the deceased Parminer Singh insured has filed rival claim/an application with it claiming the share in the claim amount. She has also filed civil suit which is now pending in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Bathinda. Smt. Jasmel Kaur has also produced copies of statement of parties i.e. of complainant and deceased insured in divorce petition filed by them jointly under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before Learned District Judge. In these circumstances, complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it admits that Parminder Singh had purchased insurance policy of Rs. 1.00 Lac with profits + double accidental benefits on 1.7.05. Policy was issued. Complainant was declared nominee. Complainant has supplied the original policy on 6.8.07. Complaint is pre-mature as claim is under consideration. There is no deficiency in service on its part. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed her version stating that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. She (opposite party No. 2) has filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the complaint and her minor children claiming her 1/4th share being the mother of the deceased. The suit was filed prior to the filing of this complaint and is pending in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bathinda. Matter is still subjudice. Complainant has not come with clean hands. She (complainant)alone is not entitled to the insurance claim amount. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence and as such only civil court is competent to decide the complaint. Complainant is simply nominee of the deceased. Nominee acts only as attorney for and on behalf of the lawful claimants and is bound to distribute the amount amongst them. Inter-alia her plea is that the relations of the complainant with the deceased were not cordial. They were living separate from each other. Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage with mutual consent was filed in the court of Sh. G K Dhir, learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Decree of divorce could not be passed as Parminder Singh has died during its pendency. Only preliminary statements were recorded in that case. Complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. She admits that Parminder Singh was murdered by Ram Singh and criminal case was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. Dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Her allegation is that complaint has been filed with malafide intention to grab the insurance claim.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Policy No. 300340342 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of application dated 2.4.5.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of FIR No. 259 dated 18.5.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Death certificate of Parminder Singh (Ex. C-6), another affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Claimants statement (Ex. C-8), photocopy of certificate of Identity and Burial or Cremation (Ex. C-9), photocopy of letter dated 9.8.07 (Ex. C-10), photocopy of letter dated 6.8.07 alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of letter dated 23.8.07 alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-12).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit of Sh. J P Arya, Manager Legal (Ex. R-2), photocopy of order dated 19.3.07 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of statement of Parminder Singh (Ex. R-4), photocopy of Pushpinder Kaur (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Divorce Petition (Ex. R-6), photocopy of Plaint dated 31.8.07 (Ex. R-7), photocopy of Stay Application (Ex. R-8), photocopy of letter dated 31.8.07 (Ex. R-9) and on behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of opposite party No. 2 (Ex. R-1) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 1.<br /> 7. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that Parminder Singh deceased had purchased insurance policy according to which some insured is Rs. 1.00 Lac with profits + double accident benefits. Copy of the policy is Ex. C-2. Opposite party No. 1 admits that policy was issued for a sum of Rs. 1.00 Lac with profits + double accident benefits. Complainant was appointed as nominee. Parminder Singh was murdered on 18.5.07. Criminal case was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and copy of the FIR is Ex. C-5. Ex. C-6 is the copy of the death certificate. Intimation regarding the death of Parminder Singh was given to opposite party No. 1.<br /> 8. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 argued that complaint is not maintainable as no succession certificate has been obtained by the complainant before filing this complaint. This submission is not tenable in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rakhsana & Ors. Vs. Smt. Nazrunnisa & Anr JT 2000(4) SC 346 in which it has been held that Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of debts or securities to which a deceased was entitled. Compensation which is claimed on account of death of the deceased is not an asset belonging to the deceased but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim on their own account. Similar view has been held in the case of Chitrapu Chinabapanaiah & Others Vs. Union of India I(2005) ACC 822. Accordingly this complaint without Succession Certificate is maintainable.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 further argued that opposite party No. 2 i.e. Smt. Jasmel Kaur has filed civil suit in civil court against the complainant, Jashanpreet Kaur and Amanpreet Singh i.e. widow, daughter and son respectively of the deceased prior to the filing of this complaint. Copies of the plaint and application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure are Ex. R-7 & Ex. R-8 respectively. He further argued that when matter is already subjudice in civil court, this complaint is not maintainable. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that mere fact that civil suit has been filed by Smt. Jasmel Kaur is no ground to hold that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 11. These rival arguments have been considered by us and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. Mere filing of the suit does not put a bar on the Forum to go into the merits in the complaint. For this, we are fortified by the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sasidharan Vs. Br. Manager Syndicate Bank 1997 ISJ (Banking) 343 and Proprietor, M/s. Jabalpur Tractors Vs. Sedmal Jainarain and Another 1996(1) CPC 15. Similar view has been held in the authorities Mike's (P) Limited Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur II(1995) CPJ 97 (NC), Uday R. Mancrikar, Mrs. Veena Uday Mancrikar Vs. Vasant T. Karode, Mrs. Meenakshi V. Karode 2002 (3) CPR 3 (NC), and Abdul Rashid Belim Vs. Branch Manager, Bank of India & Another III 2003) CPJ 268. Complainant in this case is claiming the insurance claim amount on the ground that opposite party has failed to render services. A harassed consumer cannot be allowed to suffer merely because opposite party has chosen to go to the court. Moreover, the remedy under Section 3 of the Act is additional one. Act is not in derogation of any other law. Accordingly, this Forum is well within its right to decide the complaint despite the fact that opposite party No. 2 has filed civil suit.<br /> 12. One of the objections taken in the reply of the complaint by opposite party No. 2 is that petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed as is evident from the copies of the documents Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-6 and as such, complainant is estopped from filing this complaint by her act and conduct. This objection cannot be sustained as admittedly Parminder Singh has died during the pendency of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and decree of divorce could not be passed. Opposite party No. 2 admits that petition was dismissed on account of death of Parminder Singh. In such a situation, how can complainant be said to be estopped from filing this complaint particularly when at this stage, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that complainant is still legally wedded wife of the deceased. <br /> 13. Death of Parminder Singh is not in dispute. According to the complainant he was murdered by Ram Singh by firing shot at him with fire arm. This fact is supported by the documents Ex. C-5 and with the affidavit of the complainant and opposite party No. 2 which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. R-1 respectively. Under Clause 10-2 (b) of the condition of the policy, opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay an additional sum equal to the sum insured 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 results in the death of the life assured. Since Parminder Singh was murdered, opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the insurance claim amount as death was undoubtedly/an unexpected event. For this, we get support from the authority Shyampyari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limted II(1995) CPJ 302.<br /> 14. Intimation of the death of Parminder Singh assured was given by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on 24.5.07 through registered post as is evident from Ex. C-3. Opposite party No. 1 had sent Forms No. 3783 (R) and 3785 (R). They were filled in and sent to it. Copies of them are Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9. Opposite party No. 1 had sent these forms through letter copy of which is Ex. C-10. Again complainant had sent letter dated 6.8.07 with the request that claim alongwith bonus and accidental benefits be paid to her. Opposite party No. 1 was required to decide the claim in any manner within three months from the date intimation was received. It has not been decided. Opposite party No. 1 cannot wriggle out of the situation merely on the ground that claim is under consideration and as such, complaint is pre-mature. Complainant is not to go on waiting as to when claim would be decided. In these circumstances, when opposite party No. 1 is sitting over the claim and it has not decided it, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is writ large.<br /> 15. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded and to whom and in what manner. Learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party no. 1 have made separate statement that complainant, Jashanpreet Kaur, Amanpreet Singh and Smt. Jasmel Kaur are the only legal heirs of deceased Parminder Singh. They are his widow, daughter, son and mother respectively and that there is no other Class-I legal heir of the deceased. Opposite party No. 1 has not established that it is not liable to pay the amount under the policy, copy of which is Ex. C-2. Mere fact that complainant has been declared nominee, is no ground to hold that other Class-I legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to claim the amount. Nominee is merely a trustee. He/She cannot debar other lawful claimants from claiming the benefits under the policy. Accordingly, direction deserves to be given to opposite party No. 1 to pay the entire amount under the policy, copy of which is Ex. C-2 to the complainant, opposite party No. 2, Jashanpreet Kaur, Amanspreet Singh alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 25.8.07 ( the date calculated from the expiry of three months from the date of intimation of letter i.e. 24.05.07 a period required for processing the case in an effective manner in normal case) till realisation.. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental, agony, pains and sufferings. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Moreover, out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed.<br /> 16. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 17. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against opposite party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to do as under :<br /> i) Pay the entire permissible amount under the policy purchased by Parminder Singh deceased, copy of which is Ex. C-2, alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from 25.8.07 till payment to the complainant, Jasmel Kaur, Jashanpreet Kaur and Amanpreet Singh i.e. widow, mother, daughter and son respectively of Parminder Singh deceased in equal shares.<br /> i) Amount of the shares of Jashanpreet Kaur and Amanpreet Singh minors when paid by opposite party No. 1 would be deposited in some fixed deposit in some Nationalised Bank by opposite party No. 1 and they would be entitled to receive it on attaining majority to be determined by the Manager of the concerned bank.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-01-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member