Haryana

StateCommission

A/210/2014

Ishwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.210 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 07/21.03.2014

Date of Decision: 19.02.2016

 

Ishwar S/o Sukh Lal, r/o village Khudan,Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      New India Insurance Company Ltd.  through its Divisional  Branch Manager, Bahadurgarh,Distt. Jhajjar.

2.      District Social Welfare Officer, Jhajjar.

3.      S.D.O. (C ), Jhajjar/Nodal Officer.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ajay Pathak, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          As per complainant his son Napal died in a road side accident on 03.01.2005.  Soon thereafter he submitted his claim file with Opposite party (O.P.) No.2 complete in all respects to get benefit under the Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna (In short “RGPBY”) as per memorandum of understanding (in short “MOU”) singed in between Government of Haryana and New India  Insurance Company Limited (In short “NEW INDIA”).  It was told by O.P.Nos.2 and 3 that no instruction has been received by the Government and as and when any instruction will be received information would be given to him.  Whenever he approached them, the same stereo-typed reply was given and ultimately his case was thrown in dustbin on 28.10.2011.  Hence the complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate written statements.  O.P.No.1 alleged that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short “District Forum”), Jhajjar was not having territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter because MOU was signed in between the Government of Haryana and NEW INDIA at Chandigarh.  The claim was time barred because death took place on 03.01.2005 whereas the complaint was filed on 25.11.2011.  It was alleged that no insurance policy was issued by it to pay compensation to the complainant.

3.      O.P.Nos.2 and 3 also alleged that the complaint was time barred and that the compensation was to be given under Devi Rakshak Scheme and not RGPBY.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum  dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.12.2013 on the ground of limitation.

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

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents-O.Ps. vehemently argued that death took place on 03.01.2005,  whereas this complaint was filed on 25.11.2011 i.e. after seven years, so it is time barred.

8.      It is also argued by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the MOU, produced by appellant alongwith the appeal, was executed in between Govt. of Haryana and National Insurance Company (In short “NIC”), whereas the complaint is filed against NEW INDIA,  so in any manner the complaint is not maintainable and learned District Forum rightly dismissed the same.

9.      This argument cannot be accepted because if we scrutinize the file then it will be clear that the complaint was not time barred and complainant was maintainable.  It is alleged by the complainant in Para No.5 of the complaint that ‘soon after’ the death of his son he submitted claim with O.P.No.2, but, his matter was put off under one pretext or the other. It is no where denied by O.P.No.2 that the claim was not filed with it as alleged by complainant.  It was simply alleged that it is a matter of record.  It is well settled preposition of law that if any question of fact is not denied specifically then the same amounts to admission.  For ready reference para No.5 of the complaint and Para No.5 of the reply filed by O.P.Nos.2 and 3 are reproduced as under:-

                   “Para No.5 of the complaint.

That soon after the death of Napal petitioner  submitted his claim file with all required documents duly complete in all respect to get the benefit of above scheme with in stipulated period before respondent no.2 (social welfare officer) Jhajjar who after verifying all required documents and finding no lacuna told to petitioner that yet no information & instruction has been issued by the Haryana Govt. that which of the insurance company or Govt. himself will be authorized to deal with such cases and gave assurance that when the authorization to deal such like cases then information for submitting the case file of Napal will be informed by them to the petitioner, depending on the above assurance of respondent no.2 petitioner waited for few months and again inquired for the above authorization but on every term and visit the petitioner received the same reply from respondent no.2.

          “Para No.5 of  reply filed by O.P.Nos.2 and 3.

That Para No.5 of the complaint is matter of record.  Anything contrary to the same is wrong, false and denied.”

From the bare perusal of these paras, it is clear that O.P.No.2 has not denied the filing of claim soon after the incident.  Even otherwise during the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant had shown a representation prepared by the Sarpanch, Annexure A-7, which was submitted for the compensation. It shows that the claim was lodged within the limitation, but, was not decided by the O.Ps. in time.  It is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission that until the claim of the aggrieved party is decided the cause of action will continue and complaint can be filed after rejection of claim.  It is also well settled that cause of action will accrue from the date of denial.  Complainant has alleged that his case was rejected on 28.10.2011 and it is not denied specifically by the O.Ps. so from that date limitation is to be computed. He filed this complaint on 20.12.2011 so it is to be considered as in time.  Reference can be given to the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court  expressed in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr.Rameshchandra Ramniklal shah & Anr. III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC).  Opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Devender  Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2013 (4) CPJ 607, and United India Insurance Company Limited and another Vs. R.Piyarelall Import & Export Limited 1 (2010) CPJ 22 that when claim is repudiated on which date, the limitation automatically starts from that date.

10.    Moreover in affidavit Ex.R-1 it was alleged by O.P.No.2 and 3 that MOU was signed in between O.P.No.1 and the Govt. of  Haryana under which Rs. One lac were to be paid.

11.    Now question comes about liability of O.P.No.1 also.   It was argued that MOU was signed in between Govt. of Haryana and NIC and  complaint was not maintainable against it, but, this argument cannot be accepted because in para No.2 of preliminary objections it is admitted by O.P.No.1 that MOU was signed in between it and Govt. of Haryana, so how it can be alleged that it is not liable to pay any compensation.  O.P.No.1 is bound by the averments raised in reply.  If complainant has alleged that claim was under RGPBY but actually it was Devi Rakshak Scheme it does not mean that his right be denied.  The main point which is to be seen is whether there was any such scheme started or not and O.Ps. were liable to pay compensation or not.  As already mentioned above, O.Ps. have not denied the existence of the scheme at the time of the death of the son of the complainant. Now they are looking for escape routes so that nothing is paid to the complainant.  So these arguments are of no avail. 

12.    Learned District forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects.  Resultantly impugned order dated10.12.2013 is set aside.  The  appeal is accepted and complaint is allowed. O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs.One lac to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization jointly and severally.  The complainant is also awarded Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment etc. and litigation. 

 

February 19th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.