Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/22/2014

Chand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh BS Randhawa

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 22 of 2014

                                           Date of institution : 17/02/2014        

                                          Date of decision    : 01.10.2015

1.  Chand Singh son of Sh. Jagtar Singh,
2.  Mohinder Kaur wife of Chand Singh,
3. Harminder Singh alias Harwinder Singh minor s/o late Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through his grandfather Sh. Chand Singh,

All residents of village Warraichan, Post office Noorpura, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

•  

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd; ( A Govt. of India Undertaking) Regd. & H.O. Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 and Rural Office: SCO No.109-110-111, Surindra Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
2. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd; Branch office, near Grain Market, G.T.Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Nabha Chowk, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                 

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh. B.S.Randhawa,counsel for the complainants.            

                 Sh. B.L.Gupta, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

ORDER

 

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

           Complainants, Chand Singh son of Sh. Jagtar Singh, Mohinder Kaur wife of Chand Singh and Harminder Singh alias Harwinder Singh minor s/o late Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through his grandfather Sh. Chand Singh, a residents of village Warraichan, Post office Noorpura, Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib, have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                 The complainant No.1 is the father, No.2 is mother and No.3 is son of deceased Sukhwinder Singh, who died in a road accident.   Sukhwinder Singh ( now deceased) was having a motor cycle make Hero Honda bearing registration No.PB-48-C-4808, model 2010, which was insured with OP No.3 through cover note No.108535 dated 04.10.2010 and   vide policy No.233695/31/2011/1290, which was valid from 04.10.2010 to 04.10.2011, covering damage to motor cycle & PA cover for owner-driver. The life of the owner-driver of vehicle is insured to the extent of Rs.1 lakh in the head of P.A, for which the OPs charged Rs.50/- as additional premium. Unfortunately, on 25.12.2010 the said Sukhwinder Singh had expired in road accident at village Salani while driving the said motor cycle.  An FIR No.143 dated 26.12.2010 was registered in this regard in police station Amloh on the statement of complainant No.1. The complainant No.1 immediately informed the OP No.3 about the accident and also lodged claim No.31/12/000014 under the  said policy regarding the damage to the motorcycle and death of the driver Sukhwinder Singh and thereafter completed all the formalities to get the said claim. Instead of giving the claim amount, OP No.3 sent a notice to the claimant, advising him to produce succession certificate of guardian. Complainant No.1 immediately applied for guardian certificate before Addl. Civil Judge, Amloh on 18.04.2011 and the guardianship certificate was issued on 05.10.2011. Thereafter, complainant No.1 submitted the certified copy of the same to the OPs at their branch Amloh.  Thereafter, vide letter dated 22.11.2011, the OPs directed the complainant No.1 to produce the succession certificate and original driving license verification report. Complainant No.1, after getting the verification report from the licensing authority Amloh, submited the same with the OPs. The complainant also applied for getting the succession certificate, which was issued on 13.10.2012. The certified copy of the succession certificate was submitted to OP No.3. Thereafter, instead of releasing the claim the OPs went on prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other without any reason or cause and harassing the complainant unnecessarily. The complainant No.1 visited several times the office of OPs at Amloh, Khanna & Rajpura in person and also along with respectable persons of village and also sent legal notice dated 21.05.2013 but it vain. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay the sum insured  i.e. Rs.1 lakh under the head P.A.cover and Rs.35,000/- as damages to the motor cycle in question and further to pay Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service and Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony and harassment to the complainant along with interest.

3.                 The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs stated that the motorcycle in question was insured with OP No.3 for the period from 05.10.2010 to 04.10.2011, vide policy No.233695/31/2011/1290 with cover note No.108535 dated 04.10.2010 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The OPs further stated that on 14.04.2011, intimation about the claim for loss/damage in respect of vehicle in question, due to the alleged accident, was reported by complainant No.1 for obtaining OD Claim. On receipt of said intimation the concerned Branch Manager deputed Dinesh K. Verma, Surveyor, Loss Assessors and Valuers, Khanna, who conducted the survey of the motorcycle in question and assessed the net loss payable to the tune of Rs.6134/- and the salvage value has been assessed for Rs.334/- and submitted his report dated10.05.2011. After the receipt of the surveyor report, OP No.3 issued a letter dated 18.05.2011 to complainant No.1 to provide the succession certificate, original driving license of Sukhwinder Singh, original verification report but complainant No.1 did not produce any required documents. Thereafter, on 28.07.2011, 27.11.2011 and 18.01.2012, OP No.3 issued reminders to provide the said documents but the same were not produced by him. As a result thereof, the file was closed as ‘No Claim’ for non-submission of Succession Certificate. Thereafter the complainant No.1 produced the succession certificate issued in favour of claimants on stamp papers dated 18.12.2012. The claim of the claimants was re-opened and Ajmer Lal Pundeer, B.A. LLB, AIII, was deputed to investigate the claim for death of owner driver, who submitted his report dated 28.03.2013. Thereafter during the process of the death claim by the OPs, it transpired that the succession certificate submitted by Chand Singh, complainant No.1, pertains to cover note No.756420 dated 04.10.2010, which is not related to the policy in question. Therefore, OP No.3 issued a letter dated 05.09.2013 to complainant No.1  requesting him to submit the succession certificate applicable to the policy in question regarding cover note No.108535 dated 04.10.2010, and also to submit the duly completed and signed claim form. But the claimant Chand Singh did not produce the same despite repeated reminders. Therefore, due to non submission of required documents, the death claim could not be processed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence copy of insurance policy Ex. C-1 and C-2, copy of compliance of section 64 VB Ex. C-2/A, copy of FIR Ex. C-3, copy of order dated 05.10.2011 Ex. C-4, copy of application dated 24.01.2011 Ex. C-5, copy of succession certificate dated 18.12.12 Ex. C-6, copy of letter dated 14.01.2013 Ex. C-7, postal receipt Ex. C-8, copy of legal notice Ex. C-9, copy of letter dated 18.02.2013 Ex. C-10, copy of death certificate of Sukhwinder Singh Ex. C-11, copy of death certificate of Ranjit Kaur Ex. C-12, copy of ration card Ex. C-14, copy of postmortem report Ex. C-15, copy of Identity card Ex. C-16, copy of report dated 29.12.2012 Ex. C-17, copy of letter dated 04.09.2013 Ex. C-18, affidavit of Mohan Singh Ex. C-18/A, copy of letter dated 05.09.2013 Ex. C-19, affidavit of Chand Singh          Ex.C-19/A, copy of reminders  Ex. C-20  and C-21, copy of letter to OP Ex. C-22,  copy of cover note Ex. C-23, copy of ration card in the name of Chand Singh Ex. C-24, copy of receipt challan Ex. C-25 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. A.K. Sehgal, Sr. D.M as Ex. OP-1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-23 and closed the evidence.

5.                 The ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the main point of dispute in the present case is that the OPs have failed to make the payment of claim, despite submitting of requisite documents as demanded by the OPs. The ld. counsel submitted that the claim of the complainant had been declared as ‘No Claim’ in an arbitrary manner. The ld. counsel argued that it is evident from the evidence placed on record that all the requisite documents were supplied to the OPs and lateron, OPs raised a new objection that the Policy Number in the succession certificate i.e Ex.C-6 was not correct, therefore the OPs declared the claim as “No Claim”. In support of his submissions the ld. counsel cited case law titled as Mamta Sen Vs.Life Insurance Corporation of India,1981 AIR(Calcutta) 283, it was observed in para no.11 that “ In the case of Shanti Debi V. Ramla, Air 1958 Allahabad 569, the lower appellate Court held that merely because the appellant was nominated to receive the money from the Insurance Company, she did not become the owner of the money and that the nomination only dispensed with the necessity of obtaining a succession certificate. On such view the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred a second appeal to the High Court which too was dismissed. This decision therefore impliedly holds that the nominee, in order to collect the money, need not obtain a succession certificate. In the case of Ramballav V. Gangadhar, (AIR 1956 Calcutta 275) (Supra) also it is observed that Section 39(6) provides an expeditious discharge of the liability of Insurance Company by providing that the money is payable to the nominee. The Insurance Company need not look to the legal representatives of the assured before making the payment”.

6.        On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that on comparison from Succession Certificate i.e Ex.OP-17 and Policy i.e Ex.OP-2 that incorrect policy number had been mentioned in the succession certificate. The ld. counsel stated that vide letters dated 5.09.2013 i.e Ex-OP-20, 10.10.2013 i.e Ex.OP-21, 06.11.2013 i.e Ex.     OP-22, several reminders were sent to the complainant to get the same corrected from the Hon’ble Court but instead the complainant has filed the present complainant. He pleaded that the OPs were always ready and willing to make the payment but subject to correction of policy number in the succession certificate. The ld. counsel argued that the judgment cited by the ld. counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no nominee had been mentioned in the policy and same is evident from Ex.OP-2, hence no deficiency of service has been committed by the OPs.

7.                 After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the OPs. It is well established after comparison of the Policy i.e Ex.C-1 and succession certificate i.e Ex. C-6 that the policy number mentioned in the succession certificate do not mach with each other. In our view the complainant could have got the same corrected as per Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant Sections state as;

“Section 151.Saving of inherent powers of Court.-

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”

“Section 152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.-

Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.”

8.                In view of the aforesaid provisions, the complainant could have exercised the remedy available for correction of the policy number in the succession certificate. The case law cited is not applicable to the present case in hand as no nominee had been mentioned in the policy i.e Ex-C1.

9.                Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the complainant to avail the remedy under Sections 151 & 152 of the CPC and get the requisite correction done and submit the same with the OPs. We further direct the OPs, on receipt of the succession certificate with the correct Policy number, the OPs shall make the payment to the complainant within one month. In case the OPs fail to comply with this order the OPs shall be liable to pay 9% interest p.a till its realization. In view of the aforementioned observation the present complaint is disposed of. However the complainant may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. Parties to bear their own cost.

10.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 22.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:01.010.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)              

President

 

  (A.B.Aggarwal)                  

     Member