Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/151

Kulwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Harpreet Singh Kathuria

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                                             CC/151/2015

Kulwinder Kaur Vs. New India Assurance co.

 

9.9.2015:Present:Sh. H.S.Kathuria, counsel for the complainant.

ORDER

1. It is alleged by the complainants that Jasjeetpal Singh, husband of the complainant Smt.Kulwinder Kaur and the father of the complainants Ms.Tranpreet Kaur, Ms.Vipanjot Kaur and Mr.Amanpreet Singh was serving as Sr.Asstt. in the Punjabi University,Patiala. Punjabi University, Patiala had purchased a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.36150042120120100000047 from New India Assurance Co. i.e. the Op for the period 9.4.2012 to 8.4.2013 and the same also included Jasjeetpal Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants, and his name existed at Sr.No.266 in the combined list of the employees. The amount of the premium was paid by Jasjeetpal Singh and the same was deducted from his salary. The policy covered the insurance amount of Rs.three lacs i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- under Table A and Rs.1,50,000/- under Table B in case of the death of the insured.
2. There occurred a dispute between Jasjeetpal Singh and his brother Dhanvinder Singh @ Kukoo and others. Jasjeet Singh was murdered on 2.4.2013. FIR No.22 dated 2.4.2013 under Section 302 IPC read with sections 27,54,59 had been registered against Dhanvinder Singh with P.S.Sanour.Jasjeetpal Singh left behind the complainants as his legal heirs.
3. After the death of Jasjeetpal Singh, the complainants lodged the claim with the Op but who vide their letter dated 31.7.2013 repudiated the same. The complainants filed complaint No.CC/14108 on 6.5.2014, in which the complainants had claimed the insured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said complaint was accepted by the Forum vide order dated 12.9.2014 and the Op was directed to make the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainants with interest @9% per annum from the date of the repudiation till final payment and the complainants were also awarded the costs of Rs.5000/-.
4. After the decision of the said complaint, the complainants came to know  vide letter No.4163 dated 25.11.2014 that the amount of the Group Insurance Policy payable to the deceased was Rs.3lacs. The complainants due to inadvertence claimed the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/- in the earlier complaint. The Op has already made the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-.The complainants approached the Op for making the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but the Op failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainants. The complainants sent legal notice dated 21.5.2015 against the Op with a request to make the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- under Table B of the policy but to no effect. Accordingly the complainants have brought this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to make the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as covered under Table B of the insurance policy with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the lodging of the claim and further to award Rs.50,000/-by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by them.
5. Apparently, the second complaint in respect of claim having arisen in favor of the complainants in respect of the same insurance policy i.e. policy No. 36150042120120100000047 can not be maintained against the Op because the cause of action to file the complaint against the Op had arisen in favor of the complainants on the death of the insured namely Jasjeetpal Singh and they were entitled to claim the benefits under the policy as provided under Table A  for Rs.1,50,000/- and under Table B also for Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainants had in the earlier complaint No.CC/14/108 of 6.5.2014 claimed the insured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and accordingly their complaint was accepted and the Ops admittedly have made the payment of the same. The complainants have not furnished any explanation as to why they could not raise a claim in respect of the benefit of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as shown in Table-B of the insurance policy in the previous complaint. In the previous complaint, the complainants had not reserved their right to file the complaint regarding the benefit as provided under Table B of the Insurance policy. It is a principle of public policy that a party can not be vexed twice for the same cause of action. Had the complainants raised the claim regarding the benefit of Rs.1,50,000/-as per Table-B in the previous complaint, the Op would have had  the occasion to put forth their plea and the Forum might have granted the relief on that count also.
6. It is important to note that the cause of action to file the present complaint has not arisen afresh after the decision of the first complaint and rather it remains the same i.e. the death of the insured namely Jasjeetpal Singh .Therefore, on the basis of the same cause of action two complaints cannot be maintained which as observed earlier is against the principle of the public policy because it will certainly prejudice the party opposite as they will be made to defend the complaint against the complainants on the basis of the same cause of action. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the second complaint on the same cause of action against the Op is not maintainable  and the same is hereby rejected. Copy of the order be supply to the complainant free of cost.

 File be consigned to the record room.

 

                                      Member               Member               President