DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 253 of 5.5.2003
Decided on: 26.4.2017
Anita Goyal wd/o Naresh Kumar Goyal, B-III/43, Bank Street, Nabha, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nabha through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Vaibhav Mangla,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate, counsel for Opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Anita Goyal wd/o Sh.Nresh Kumar Goyal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay 10,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% from the date of accident till rtealization
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation
- To pay Rs.7500/- as costs of the complaint alongwith any other relief which this Forum may deem fit
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.3.1998 her husband had taken a miscellaneous accident policy, namely Janta Personal Accident policy bearing No.4735180703475 for Rs.10,lac , for a term of 11 years and she was appointed as nominee in the said policy. It is averred that her husband was doing the work of manufacturing spare parts of fans in his factory and also running a Dharmkanda (weighing scale) near village Duladi (Nabha) and used to go to Patiala on every Wednesday. On 1.5.2002, it was being Wednesday, he left for Patiala at about 1/2P.M. At about 8.30P.M. he had a telephonic talk with his friend Mr.Ashok Goyal, who was residing at Nabha.When till late night her husband did not came back at home, his family and friends have started searching Naresh Kumar Goyal. On the next day, his scooter bearing No.PB 11J 6033 was found stuck partly in loomy mud, at the right bank of the canal. On 3.5.2002, a report regarding the missing of Naresh Kumar Goyal was lodged with the Police Sadar, Station, Nabha. On 4.5.2002, at about 11 A.M., the dead body of Naresh Kumar was found near village Thuhi. The was taken into custody by the police for the purpose of investigation and for getting the postmortem conducted .The clothes and shoes etc. were found intact on the dead body of Mr.Naresh Kumar Goyal.At the time of postmortem, it was found that there was scratch on the nose and below the eye.It is averred that on 1.5.2002, deceased Naresh Kumar Goyal, while returning to home from Patiala, just after crossing Rohti Bridge, where the road for Nabha has a sharp curve, left side of the road being bumpy and the right bank of the canal being depressed causing a ditch, could not correctly assessed the way turning to Nabha, fell into the canal from right side and washed away due to current of the water.The Police Authorities during the independent investigation found that death of Naresh Kumar Goyal was occurred due to drowning( accidental) because scooter of the deceased was found fallen inside the bank of canal, where earth was eroded and there was a pit, the metled road was having very high level and was in depth.It was being night, the deceased might have could not see the pit. No evidence of ‘suicide’ , violence or animity etc. was found. She being the nominee lodged the claim alongwith legal heirs of her husband with the OP on 25.5.2002 but the same was repudiated by the OP on the ground that death of Naresh Kumar Goyal was occurred due to suicide and was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that before repudiating the claim, the OP did not supply any copy of investigation report to her. It is averred that Naresh Kumar Goyal had also taken Endowent Insurance from Life Insurance Corporation of India with accidental benefit and they have paid the amount with benefit of accident without any objection or doubt. The OP had illegally repudiated her claim. There is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.Due to the indifferent attitude of the OP, he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it stated that it issued a J.P.A. insurance policy, in favor of the deceased Naresh Kumar Goyal, for the period from 20.3.1998 to 19.3.2008, for a sum of Rs.10lac. It is stated that the whole story was concocted in connivance with the local police and was after thought. It is stated that on receipt of intimation of death of Naresh Kumar Goyal on 20.5.2002, it appointed Sh.S.M.S.Sethi, surveyor to conduct the sport survey, who in his report dated 13.6.2002 found that the alleged place of accident did not fall on the way from Patiala to Nabha and there is a long distance between drum with which the scooter was found parked in tilted position. The kacha slant of the canal bank upto the water of channel, there were many ditches and obstacles and wild growth which in ordinary course any person falling from canal bank from going into the water. The case was also got investigated from S.Harjit Singh, Investigator, who thoroughly investigated the case and established that Naresh Kumar Goyal had gone to Patiala on 1.5.2002, in his car and returned home safely. The place of accident did not fall on way from Patiala to Nabha. The alleged place of accident falls on Bhadson-Nabha road and the place of accident falls from Joure Pul to Bhadson. The investigator also recorded the statements of the local people and also of the relations of the deceased. It is stated that the Investigator observed that the deceased had not died due to accident and had committed suicide. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation being nominee of the deceased and the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OP, under the terms and conditions of the policy. The OP after denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence documents Exs.C1 to C36 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence documents Exs.OP1 to OP31 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Firstly it may be stated that the Forum had received the certified copy of order dated 21.8.2015, passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in revision petition No.3336 of 2012 whereby the Forum was directed to decide the case afresh on merits. Hence this complaint before us.
7. At the outset the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP because the Investigator on investigation found that late Sh. Naresh Kumar Goyal had committed suicide and as per exclusion clause no.4 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, nothing was payable to the complainant and the complaint filed by the complainant deserves dismissal.
8. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the report of the Investigator was based on statements of certain persons ,as none of the persons among them has clearly stated that Sh. Naresh Kumar Goyal had committed suicide . However, from the police report,Ex.C7, it is abundantly clear that Sh.Gurdial Singh, ASI,who has investigated the matter, has reported that Late Sh.Naresh Kumar had died due to drowning in the canal as his scooter had struck in a pit and he fell in the canal. Sh.Gurdial Singh, ASI had opined that the death of Naresh Kumar was accidental without any doubt and the prosecution has closed the case. Since the death of Late Sh.Naresh Kumar was due to accident, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the OP is liable to indemnify the complainant.
9. The complainant, in support of her plea, that death of Sh. Sh.Naresh Kumar had occurred due to accident, has placed reliance on the police report Ex.C7 given by Sh. Gurdial Singh,ASI. On the contrary, the stand of the OP is that late Sh.Naresh Kumar had committed suicide, to corroborate this fact, it placed reliance on the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigator. We have gone through the report of the Investigator and also the statements of the witnesses ,recorded by him as well as the affidavits, and observed that the statements of the witnesses are only to the effect that they had heard regarding the death of deceased due to drowning in the canal. None of the witnesses has stated that he or she had seen the deceased or was present at the spot when the deceased had fallen in to the canal.
Merely, on the basis of the statements of certain persons, recorded by the Investigator, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that deceased had committed suicide. We have also perused the police report Ex.C7 and postmortem report, Ex.C12. From the perusal of the police report, it is evident that Sh.Gurdial Singh,ASI who has investigated the matter has opined that the death of late Sh.Naresh Kumar was due to drowning in canal and it was a accidental death. As per the Postmortem report, certain injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It may be stated that we concur with the observations given by the Hon’ble State Commission,Chandigarh in para No.21 of its order dated 30.6.2010 that “ we are of the view that these injuries could be due to slipping of the deceased in the Canal. If the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in the canal water, then the deceased would not have suffered such injuries on his body”. There is no direct evidence collected and produced by the Op to prove that deceased had committed suicide. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence , the OP has failed to prove that the deceased has committed suicide . Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not hesitate to conclude that husband of the complainant late Sh.Naresh Kumar had died due to accident and OP was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant is thus not only entitled to get the assured amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as per insurance policy, Ex.R-27 alongwith interest but is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-
- To pay Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation till its realization.
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The Op is further directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount minus litigation costs.Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:26.4.2017 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
