Punjab

Sangrur

CC/400/2015

Bhuro Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.P. Sharma

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    400

                                                Instituted on:      03.06.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.01.2016

 

Bhuro Kaur aged about 70 years widow of Bachan Singh, resident of Village Gobindpura Jawaharwala, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 87, M.G.Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 through its Regional Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Near Railway Station, Mansa, through its Branch Manager.

4.     The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank, Head Office: Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

5.     The Gobindpura Jawaharwala Co-operative Agriculture Services Society Ltd. Gobindpura Jawaharwala, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant            :       Shri S.P.Sharma, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.1 to 3    :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.4           :       Shri Gagandeep Sibia, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.5           :       Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Bhuro 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 the son of the complainant, namely, Avtar Singh was the member of the society, OP number 3 vide account/card number 656 and under the scheme of the OPs, OP number 5 purchased a group personal insurance policy for its members and account holders from OPs number 1 to 3 through OP number 4 and the complainant was the nominee under the policy.  It is further averred that the member/account holder was provided insurance cover in case of death or permanent disablement caused due to accident. It is further averred that as per the terms and conditions of the OP Bank, the bank was liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in case of disability of body part i.e. one hand, feet, eye and Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by the insurance company, thus in case of accidental death an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid.  It is further averred that on 3.4.2008, Shri Avtar Singh son of the complainant died due to accident on the railway tracks between railway station Gurne and Lehragaga, when he was going to his fields from the house, of which inquest report number 18 dated 3.4.2008  was registered as GRP Sangrur and the post-mortem on the body of Avtar Singh was also conducted at Civil Hospital, Sunam.   It is further averred that thereafter the complainant submitted her claim to the OPs number 4 and 5 and thereafter sent the claim to OPs number 1 to 3 and submitted all the relevant documents.  Thereafter the complainant visited the OPs so many times, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 3.4.2008 till payment and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs 1 to 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not within limitation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is stated that on the request of OP number 4, the OP number 3 issued a Group Personal Accident policy w.e.f. 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008 and the sum insured under the policy was Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death.  It is further stated that after receiving the intimation dated 8.1.2009, the OP number 2 immediately appointed Shri Jiwan Kumar Garg for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 27.1.2009, wherein it was observed that the death was not accidental one, rather the same was suicidal due to financial hardship at home. The complainant also admitted this fact in writing by recording her statement. It is further stated that after examining the entire record carefully, the OP number 3 closed the file of the complainant as ‘no claim’ and informed OP number 4 through courier letter dated 10.02.2009. It is stated further that Avtar Singh committed suicide due to financial hardship at the tome and suicide was not covered under the policy and the death was not accidental one. It has been stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OPs.   However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into uncalled litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never visited the office of OPs nor submitted the claim to OPs number 1 to 3 by the OPs does not arise at all. The Ops neither demanded any documents from the complainant nor the complainant submitted any document to the OP as alleged.   Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 4 has been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 5, legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unnecessary litigation, that the present complaint of the complainant is false, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint are taken up.   On merits,  it is stated that Avtar Singh was the member of the society vide loan account number 366.  However, it is stated that an amount of Rs.17,177/- is due against the deceased Avtar Singh in their accounts and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5A.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of inquest report, Ex.C-3 copy of passbook, Ex.C-4 copy of PMR report, Ex.C-5 copy of inquest report, Ex.C-6 copy of panchaytinama, Ex.C-7 copy of claim application, Ex.C-8 copy of indemnity bond, Ex.C-9 affidavit, Ex.C-10 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-11 copy of account of Avtar Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 to 3 has been produced Ex.OP1to3/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP1to3/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP1to3/3 copy of letter dated 8.1.2009, Ex.OP1to3/4 copy of policy, Ex.OP1to3/5 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1to3/6 copy of statement of Kashmira Singh, Ex.OP1to 3/7 copy of photograph of Kashmira Singh, Ex.OP1to3/8 copy of  statement of Shamsher Singh, Ex.OP1to3/9 copy of photograph, Ex.OP1to3/10 copy of statement of Bhuro Kaur, Ex.OP1to3/11 copy of photograph of Bhuro Kaur, Ex.OP1to3/12 copy of letter dated 10.02.2009, Ex.OP1to3/13 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 5 has produced  Ex.OP5/1 affidavit, Ex.OP5/2 and Ex.OP5/3 amount deposit receipts, Ex.OP5/4 copy of accounts detail, Ex.OP5/5 copy of loan account, Ex.OP5/6 copy of register of members, Ex.OP5/7 copy of resolution and closed evidence.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that Avtar Singh was the member of the society i.e. OP number 4 under account number 656 and the OP number 4 had purchased an insurance policy for its members from OPs number 1 to 3.   It is not in dispute that Shri Avtar Singh died on 3.4.2008 and lodged the claim by the complainant with the OPs and the case of the OPs is that the claim was repudiated by the OPs and thereafter the complainant failed to took any action in the matter.  

 

7.             After going through the file in hand carefully and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that first of all the only question which arises for determination before us is whether the case in hand is under limitation or not and our answer is that the case in hand is not covered under the limitation.  It is worth mentioning here that Shri Avtar Singh (referred to as DLA in short) died on 3.4.2008 and the complainant submitted intimation to the OPs on 8.1.2009 and after receiving the intimation regarding the death of the DLA, the OP number 2 immediately appointed Shri Jiwan Kumar Garg, investigator  for investigation of the claim, who submitted his report dated 27.01.2009, wherein he clearly indicated that the death was not accidental one, rather the same was a suicidal death due to financial hardship of the DLA and after examining the claim file of the complainant, the OP number 3 closed the file as ‘no claim’ and informed accordingly.  It is on the file that the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 10.02.2009, as such, it seems that the cause of action arose to the complainant on 10.02.2009 and the complaint could have been filed within a period of two years i.e. upto 10.02.2011, but the complainant has filed the present complaint only on 03.06.2015, i.e. after a period of about six years after the arising of cause of action.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he remained mum for such a long period of about four years.  Further there is nothing on record to show that the complainant ever approached the OPs for settlement of the claim after 10.02.2009.  According to section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant could file the complaint within a period of two years of rising of the cause of action as the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 10.02.2009.  Moreover, the complainant has not filed any application on file for condonation of delay by giving explanation why she could not file the complaint earlier.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the present complaint is not maintainable before this forum as the same is barred by period of limitation.   Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member