Haryana

StateCommission

A/213/2020

JAMINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUBHASH RANA

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.213 of 2020

                                                Date of Institution: 13.03.2020

                                                               Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

 

Jaminder Singh S/o Sh.Jaswant Singh R/o Dharam Singh Colony, Narwana Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Corporate office, 87, M.G.road,fort Mumbai-400001 through its Manager.
2. Mnager, Axis Bank Ltd. Branch Danoda Khurd Tehsil Narwana,Distt. Jind.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

         

Present:-    Mr. Sunita Nain proxy counsel for Mr.Subhash Rana, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Ms.Meenakshi, Advocate alongwithMr.ManmohanSaroop, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.213 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.84 of 2019, which was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant’s son Malkeet was the account holder bearing No.915010055140245 and holding debit card No.5346800009397089 of Axis Bank Ltd. Danoda Khurd Tehsil Narwana and said card comes with a personal accident insurance cover of Rs.5,00,000/-. However unfortunately said Sh.Malkeet expired on 27.03.2017 in a road-side accident and after his death, being a nominee, complainant submitted the claim alongwith documents with the OPs but later did not make the payment of insured amount. The claim having been wrongly repudiated by the OPs, complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs but all in vain. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      In its written version, objections about accruing cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction,maintainability of the complaint etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

          On merits, it was denied that complainant had deposited all the reuired documents. The answering OP has legally and rightly rejected the claim of the complainant on account of non submission of claim documents as per SLA (Service Legal Agreement) with the OP.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant was not entitled for any compensation much less interest thereon from answering OP and complaint of the complainant was liable to be dismissed.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Jindhas dismissed the complaint vide order dated 16.01.2020.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      These argumentswere advanced by Ms.Sunita Nain proxy counsel for Mr.Subhash Rana, Advocate for the appellant as well as Sh.P.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Meenakshi, Advocate alongwithMr.ManmohanSaroop, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant argued that complainant’s son Sh.Malkeet was the account holder bearing No.915010055140245 and debit card No.5346800009397089 of Axis Bank Ltd. Danoda Khurd Tehsil Narwana and said card indeed comes with a personal accident insurance cover of Rs.5,00,000/-.   Sh.Malkeet had died away on 27.03.2017 in a road side accident. Being a nominee, the complainant filed claim alongwith all the documents with the OPs but they did not make the payment of insurance amount. The claim was wrongly repudiated by the OPs. The learned District Commission fell in error when it dismissed the complaint. The complainant was entitled for the compensation as prayed for.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected on the ground of non submission of the claim documents as per the SLA.  Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that debit card should have been used within 180 days prior to the date of accident. Malkeet died on 27.03.2017 thus the card should have been used by 27.09.2016 for purchase of any merchandise but account statement reveals that card was not used for purchase of any such thing between 27.09.2016 to 27.03.2017, which was in clear violation of the terms and conditions or the card policy.

9.      It is true that debit cardwas obtained by deceased son of complainant during his life time which covered for a personal accident of Rs.5.00 Lacs Ex.C-2.  It is also true that Sh.Malkeetsuccumbed to his injuries in a roadside accident on 27.03.2017.  It is also true that Jaminder Singh was nominee of Sh.Malkeet Ex.C-4.  It is also true that Malkeet died in road accident  Ex.C-10. The post mortem report reveals that Malkeethas died due to injuries received in accident.  Since Sh.Malkeet had obtained personal accident cover of
Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of accident, the nominee of Malkeet had a right for the personal accident cover from the opposite party. The plea of the OPs that complainant did not submit the required documents was not tenable in the eyes of law because the complainant had already submitted the required documents with the OPs. Even the bank account statement clearly shows several entries relating to certain purchases carried out by the holder of the said card. Moreover, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim cannot be rejected on the ground of non submission of documents. Hence, the complainant-appellant is entitled for the insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The learned District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint. 

10.    In view of the above, there are sufficient grounds to accept the appeal and while accepting the appeal, the impugned order dated  16.01.2020 passed by the learned District Commission is hereby set aside for all intents and purposes and the complaint accordingly stands allowed.   The OPs are directed to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till realization. The amount as allowed above is directed to be paid within stipulated period of 45 days and in case of non-compliance, the complainant-appellant is further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.20,000/- for compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act would also be attractable.

11.    Applications pending, if any stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to the record room.

30thNovember, 2023                                                         S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)