DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  519

                                                Instituted on:    30.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       23.02.2017

Mohinder Kaur Daughter of late Jarnail Singh, resident of village Satoj, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, since deceased now represented through her legal heir Kiranpal Kaur daughter of late Jarnail Singh, wife of Satkar Singh, resident of village Mohar Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Mansa.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Malwa Gramin Bank, Branch Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.7, Above Allahabad Bank, Chhotti Baradari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Gurinder Pal Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.1.            :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Sandeep Aggarwal, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Kiranpal Kaur being the daughter and legal heir of deceased Mohinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that mother of the complainant, namely, Manjeet Kaur wife of late Jarnail Singh (referred to as DLA in short) obtained a limit of Rs.2,75,000/- from the OP number 1 vide account number 86003448870 and at that time the OP number 1 insured the limit amount of Manjeet Kaur and also insured Manjeet Kaur for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and for that an amount of Rs.3,000/- was deducted from the limit account of Manjeet Kaur on 31.12.2014.  Further case of the complainant is that on 17.8.2015, Manjeet Kaur died leaving behind the complainant being her LR and except the complainant there is no other legal heir of Manjeet Kaur.  Further case of the complainant is that though she approached OP number 1 to close the limit account and to pay the outstanding amount, then the complainant told that the limit account was insured and it is the liability of insurance company to clear the dues and further requested to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. But, nothing happened despite serving of legal notice dated 9.6.2016 upon the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to close the limit account and to clear the outstanding/dues from the OP number 2 and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of insurance claim amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is wrong, false, bad, vague and vexatious in nature which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it has been admitted that Smt. Manjeet Kaur had given a debit voucher of Rs.3000/- to be paid to SBI Life for her insurance and the OP had issued cheque number 960890 dated 29.01.2015 in the name of OP number 2 and the same was received by Shri Baneesh Kapil alongwith cheques of some other persons and it is the OP number 2, who had to issue the policy in question. Further it is stated that the OP number 1 wrote letters dated 31.3.2015 and 31.12.2015 to OP number 2 for the issuance of the insurance policy, but all in vain.  It is further stated that since the OP number 2 did not issue any policy, they did not provide any details thereof.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint,  that the complainant has not mentioned any proposal number, policy number, instrument details through which the premium paid etc. Mere debit entry reflecting in bank statement towards the premium to SBI Life does not automatically make the OP liable for payment of death claim and that the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.  On merits, it has been stated that since the complainant has not given any details of the policy, proposal number etc. as such the Op is unable to find any policy. Further it is stated that the Op number 2 is not at all liable to pay the insurance claim amount.  Further it is stated that the complainant even does not come under the purview of the section 2(i)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of passbook, Ex.C-5 copy of adhaar card, Ex.C-6 copy of death certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 affidavit along with annexure A to H and closed evidence. The OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             A bare perusal of the written statement filed by Op number 1 reveals that OP number 1 has a tie up with the OP number 2 and it is stated further that Smt. Manjeet Kaur had given a debit voucher for Rs.3000/- to be paid to SBI Life i.e. Op number 2 for her insurance and accordingly OP number 2 issued cheque number 960890 dated 29.01.2015 in the name of OP number 2 and the same was received by Shri Baneesh Kapil from OP number 1 along with other cheques, but the OP number 2 did not issue the policy in favour of Smt. Manjeet Kaur. But, the Op number 2 has totally denied that Smt. Manjeet Kaur was ever insured or any policy was issued in her favour as there is nothing on record such as proposal number, policy number, instrument details through which the premium was paid to op number 2 and mere reflecting in bank statement towards the premium for SBI life does not automatically make the OP number 2 liable for payment. But, we feel that since the OP number 1 has debited the premium of Rs.3000/- to the account of Smt. Manjeet Kaur and the same was paid through cheque number 960890 dated 29.01.2015 to OP number 2, as is evident from the copy of bank passbook, Ex.C-4, as such, we feel that the OP number 1 is itself responsible to get issued the insurance policy in favour of Smt. Manjeet Kaur.  If the OP number 2 has not issued the policy to Smt. Manjeet Kaur, then it is between the two i.e. OPs number 1 and 2. We may mention that the premium of Rs.3000/- has already been debited to the account of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur on 31.12.2014 and the same has been allegedly paid to OP number 2 through cheque number 960890 dated 29.01.2015 and if the amount of Rs.3000/- did not reach the OP number 2, then it is OP number 1 who is responsible to get the policy issued or to credit the amount of Rs.3000/- in the account of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, which has not been done nor the OP number 1 has credited the amount of Rs.3000/- in the account of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 kept the amount of Rs.3000/- (premium) with it, as such we feel that the OP number 1 is liable for its consequences.  It is on record that the amount of Rs.3000/- was debited to the account of Jaswinder Kaur on 31.01.2014 and the amount was allegedly sent to OP number 2 vide cheque number 960890 dated 29.01.2015 after 29 days, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is liable for the consequences and to pay the insurance claim on account of death of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 30.08.2016 till realisation in full. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.   A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 23, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                           (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member