DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.170/01.10.2007 Decided on : 21.08.2008 1.Paramjit Kaur widow of Malkiat Singh S/o Sh. Thakur Singh, resident of Village Aandian Wali, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Makhan Singh S/o Sh.Malkiat Singh 3.Balwinder Singh S/o Sh.Malkiat Singh 4.Jaswinder Kaur D/o Sh.Malkiat Singh , all residents of Village Aandian Wali, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda. 2.Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Bareta. 3.Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Mansa. 4.District Manager, Mansa Central Cooperative Bank, Mansa. 5.The Mansa Central Cooperative Bank limited, Branch Bareta. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.R.K.Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.N.K.Sharma, counsel for Opposite Parties No.1,2 & 3. Sh.S.K.Singla, counsel for Opposite Parties No.4 & 5. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. Order: Malkiat Singh S/o Sh. Thakur Singh resident of Village Aandian Wali had opened Account No.2408 dated 23.5.2000 in Mansa Contd........2 : 2 : Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Bareta by way of depositing Rs.1,100/-. Opposite parties No.3 and 4 had floated a scheme that the account holder who would keep at least Rs.1,100/-in the saving account would be got insured and under that insurance he would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- in case of his death in an accident. Accordingly, insurance policy was purchased by the opposite party Bank from National Insurance Company for its account holders who were keeping at least Rs.1100/- in their saving accounts. Malkiat Singh was one of them and the insurance was valid from 01.06.2002 to 31.5.2003. On 18.10.2002, he was murdered. His dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Criminal case with F.I.R. No.107 Dated 18.10.2002 was registered in Police Station Boha. While opening the account, deceased Malkiat Singh appointed complainant No.1 as his nominee. After the death of Malkiat Singh, an application was moved by her through Opposite Party No.5 for getting the assured amount. Opposite Party No.5 forwarded the case to Opposite Party No.4 vide letter No.1348 dated 12.2.2003 for payment of the death claim to the nominee. She continued paying visits to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 for getting the claim amount, but to no effect. Ultimately she got issued legal notice dated 19.03.2007 through her counsel to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Opposite parties No.4 and 5, reply of which was not sent by them. Complainant No.1 is the widow, whereas complainants No.2 to 4 are the issues of Malkiat Singh deceased. It has been averred in the complaint that the claim amount be given to Paramjit Kaur and remaining complainants have no objection to it 2) In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' ) has been preferred by the complainants seeking a direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay them the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till payment; pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation Contd........3 : 3 : 3) Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 filed their version taking legal objections that the complainants have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, Complainants No.2 to 4 are major and were not dependent upon the deceased; complainants have suppressed the material facts from this Forum and complaint is not in time. Malkiat Singh is stated to have been murdered on 18.10.2002 and this complaint has been filed on 01.10.2007 Account of Malkiat Singh was closed by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 due to his death. They deny that death of Malkiat Singh was accidental. He and his family were apprehending that their opponents would harm them. Compensation is payable in case the death is accidental. Murder is not covered under the Group Insurance Policy. They deny the remaining averments. 4) Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 filed separate reply to the complaint admitting that Malkiat Singh deceased had opened Saving Account with Opposite Party No.5. They had floated an insurance scheme for the customers who had opened saving bank accounts and were keeping at least Rs.1100/-in their accounts. They had purchased the insurance policy from National Insurance Company for the customers for insuring them. Paramjit Kaur was the nominee of Malkiat Singh. Documents submitted for getting the claim were delivered by them to the National Insurance Company for passing the claim. They deny that there was any deficiency on their part. 5) In support of the allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered in their evidence affidavit of Paramjit Kaur (Ex.C-1), Copy of pass book (Ex.C-2), Annexure III (Ex.C-3),Particulars of A/c holders (Ex.C-4) Post Mortem Report (Ex.C-5), Receipt dated 24.10.02 (Ex.C-6) Report of Chowkidar (Ex.C-7), FIR No.107 (Ex.C-8), letter No.1348 (Ex.C-9), Claim Application-cum-declaration (Ex.C-10), another affidavit of Paramjit Kaur (Ex.C-11), Manager's Report (Ex.C-12), another affidavit of Paramjit Kaur (Ex.C-13), application of Paramjit Kaur Contd........4 : 4 : (Ex.C-14), Legal Notice dated 17.3.2007 (Ex.C-15), Postal Receipts Ex.C-16 to C-20), Death Certificate of Malkiat Singh (Ex.C-21), Endorsement Schedule (Ex.C-22), affidavit of Atma Singh (Ex.C-23)Order of District Consumer Forum,Mansa dated 3.1.2008 (Ex.C-24) and Conviction Order dated 18.11.2005 by the Sessions Judge, Mansa (Ex.C-25) 6) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties, Extract of ledger (Ex.OP-A), Copy of ledger indicating entries in the saving account of Malkiat Singh (Ex.OP-B), Copy of Form (Ex.OP-C), letter dated 8.5.2008 (Ex.OP-1) , Claim form (Ex.OP-2), Group Personal Accident Policy (Ex.OP-3) , letter of NIC (Ex.OP-4), Details of account numbers of the account holders including Malkiat Singh (Ex.OP-5) have been tendered in evidence. 7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8) Group Insurance Policy was purchased by opposite party Central Cooperative Bank, Mansa for the benefit of its account holders for the period from 1.6.2002 to 31.5.2003, copy of which is Ex.OP-3. According to the terms and conditions of the policy, opposite party National Insurance Company had to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in case the account holder dies due to an accident during the subsistence of the policy. Malkiat Singh account holder was also got insured as he was having Account No.2408 dated 23.5.2000 with Opposite Party No.5. He was murdered on 18.10.2002. His dead body was subjected to post mortem examination, copy of which is Ex.C-5. Criminal case with FIR No.107 was registered at Police Station Boha. Copy of the FIR is Ex.C-7. Accused in the murder of Malkiat Singh were got convicted and sentenced by the Court vide order dated 18.11.2005, copy of which is Ext.25. Claim application-cum-death declaration from Paramjit Kaur nominee is Ex.C-10 which was submitted by her and it is dated 10.2.2003. Her affidavits are Ex.C-11 and C-13. Application Ex.C-14 was moved by her to the Manger Contd........5 : 5 : of Opposite party No.5 for getting the claim of the death of her husband. The Manager of opposite party No.5 gave the report Ex.C-12 that she is entitled to the payment. Claim papers were sent by opposite party No.5 to opposite party No.4 vide letter dated 12.02.2003. Complainants got served legal notice dated 17.3.2007 upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, copy of which is Ex.C-15. Complainant Paramjit Kaur in her affidavit Ex.C-1 reiterates her version in the complaint. In the affidavit Ex.C-23, Atma Singh states that complainant was approaching the opposite parties, but no relief was given to her. 9) Argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the claim for getting the insured amount was submitted to the opposite parties but amount has not so far been paid by the opposite parties. 10) Mr.Singla learned counsel for opposite parties No.4 and 5 submitted that the claim was submitted to opposite party No.5 along with documents by Paramjit Kaur for getting the claim regarding the death of Malkiat Singh deceased. The record was forwarded to opposite party No.4 for passing the claim. His next submission is that thereafter claim papers were sent to the opposite party Insurance Company by opposite parties No.4 and 5 as it was to make adjudication regarding the claim. 11) The arguments of Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 are too fold. One is that complaint is barred by time as Malkiat Singh had died on 18.10.2002 and this complaint was filed on 1.10.2007 without approaching opposite parties No.1,2 and 3. Second one is that as per version of the complainant, Malkiat Singh was murdered and murder is not covered under the Group Insurance Policy. 12) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments. 13) Opposite party Insurance Company has made itself liable if the insured sustains bodily injury solely and directly caused by accidental, Contd........6 : 6 : violent, external and visible means resulting into his death or disablement. Admittedly, Malkiat Singh has not died of a natural death. His death has been caused by some one else. Relevant dictionary meanings of the word 'accident' are unexpected event, one that occurs without design or apparent cause. Malkiat Singh was not expecting that he would be killed. No body can be certain as to how or when he would die. Death of Malkiat Singh was an unexpected event which had occurred without design or apparent cause. He was murdered. Malkiat Singh has since died during the validity period of the insurance policy. Contention of Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 that murder is not covered under the accident is not tenable. In this view of the matter we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Gujarat in case of Shyam Pyari vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II(1995)CPJ 302. It being so, opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 cannot escape their liability to pay the insurance amount concerning the death claim of Malkiat Singh on this count. 14) Plea of the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 that complaint is barred by time and that claim was not lodged with opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, deceased Malkiat Singh was got insured by opposite party Bank from National Insurance Company. Insurance was through the Bank. Accordingly, Complainant No.1 submitted the claim papers to opposite party No.4 which further forwarded them to the head office. Opposite parties No.4 and 5 have taken a specific stance that insurance claim papers were sent by them to the Insurance Company. Reply of the complaint to this effect has been submitted by opposite parties No.4 and 5 on 20.2.2008. Reply of the complaint was presented by Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 on 10.3.2008. Despite the plea taken by opposite parties No. 4 and 5 that death claim was sent to the National Insurance Company, opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 did not refute it in the reply of the complaint submitted on 10.3.2008. Now opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 are relying upon the letter Contd........7 : 7 : dated 8.5.2008 of the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company to the Divisional Manager in which claim has been shown to have not been lodged. No amount of evidence or argument can be considered if the same is beyond pleadings/averments. Had opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 not received the claim papers concerning the death claim of Malkiat Singh, they could take the plea in the reply of the complaint itself particularly when specific plea was taken by opposite parties No.4 and 5 that death claim was sent to the National Insurance Company. Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 cannot wriggle out of the situation merely on the basis of the letter dated 8.5.2008 which came into existence during the pendency of the complaint and that too after the reply of the complaint was submitted by them before this Forum. Since the claim was lodged by complainant No.1 for getting the death claim regarding the death of her husband as he was insured and there is no document regarding the repudiation of the claim till date, complaint filed on 1.10.2007 cannot be said to be barred by time as Complainant No.1 was going from pillar to post for getting the claim amount. Assurance was being given to her that claim amount would be paid. Despite this, neither the claim has been repudiated nor allowed. Matter has been left in the lurch. Ultimately, complainant got served legal notice and thereafter presented this complaint which, in our view, is not barred by time. 15) Claim amount has to be paid by opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 which has not been paid. Hence deficiency in service on their part is proved. Opposite parties No.4 and 5 are not, in any way, liable for payment of the insurance claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. In these circumstances, direction deserves to be given to Opposite Parties No.1,2 and 3 to pay the insurance claim of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% from 01.05.2003 (date calculated on expiry of three months period from 30.1.2003 when application (Ex.C-14) was moved by the complainant for getting the claim, a period required for processing the claim in an Contd........8 : 8 : effective manner in normal course) till realization. Complainants are also praying for compensation of Rs.20,000/-. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of interest and compensation one can be allowed. 16) No doubt, Complainant No.1 is seeking the claim amount as nominee, nominee is merely a trustee of the property on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased. Since legal heirs of the deceased have preferred this complaint and no specific authority has been given to Complainant No.1 to receive the entire amount, they are entitled to the amount referred to above in equal shares. 17) In the result, complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties No.1,2 and 3 with costs of Rs.1,000/-. It stands dismissed quo Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 are directed to do as under: (i) Pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% from 1.5.2003 till payment. 18) Compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 21.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
