DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 100 of 23.4.2007<br /> Decided on : 23.10.2007 <br /> <br /> 1. Mohinder Kaur widow of late Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh.<br /> 2. Kashmir Singh;<br /> 3. Gurmel Singh;<br /> 4. Bahadur Singh sons of late Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh, all R/o Street No. 5, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Naruana Road, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office, Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25-27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Managing Director.<br /> 2.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Surindra Building, SCO No. 109 to 111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.<br /> 3.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 4501, Bank Street, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 4.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Zila Parishad Branch, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3. <br /> Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.4 <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh was working as Peon/Daftri in opposite party No.4. He was the husband of complainant No. 1 and the father of complainants No. 2 to 4. Personal Accident Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was obtained from opposite party No. 3 vide cover note No. 76888 dated 10.1.2005. Policy No. 46/2005/00404 was prepared. It was obtained through opposite party No.4. Due premium was paid to opposite party No. 3 under the policy. Assured died due to drowning accident in Sirhind Canal (Bir Talab) on 4.8.2006. His body was recovered on 5.8.2006. Deceased died intestate and is survived by the complainants, who are legal heirs. Insurance policy was taken by Kartar Singh for his own benefits and for his heirs. Complainant No. 1 in her capacity as legal heir of the deceased lodged insurance claim no. 46/2007/00001 with opposite parties No. 1 to 3. After keeping the matter pending for considerable period, opposite party No.3 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.12.2006 alleging that it (claim) was investigated by Sh. Harjit Singh, Investigator, who submitted his report that deceased was under the influence of heavy dose of liquor at the time of alleged accident and by relying upon the exclusion clause contained in the policy, it (insurance company) repudiates the claim. Complainants assail the repudiation as arbitrary, malafide, illegal and unjustified on the grounds that it is totally false and baseless. Deceased had died on account of genuine drowning accident/incident due to slipping while taking bath in Sirhind Canal. He neither committed suicide nor was there any occasion or undue pressure upon him to have taken such a drastic step nor was he under depression. He was not under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. No proper inquiry or valid verification regarding the habits of the deceased was conducted by the opposite parties or their Investigators from his family members. Post mortem report makes no mention of the presence of liquor in the body of the deceased. Reliance on the statement and affidavit of Baldev Singh colleague of the deceased is misplaced as statement and affidavit are tainted and manipulated. Baldev Singh has given in writing by way of his affidavit that his signatures were obtained by the Insurance Investigator by misrepresentation on already prepared documents on the understanding that appending of his signatures would help the family of the deceased in speedily obtaining the insurance claim. Contents of the alleged statement/affidavit were not read out to him. His signatures were fraudulently obtained in a dishonest manner to enable opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to repudiate the genuine insurance claim. They allege deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay them Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. the insurance claim amount alongwith interest @ 15% P.A from the date the claim was lodged upto the date of payment, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant and as such, they are not liable to pay the compensation to them; complaint is bad for misjoinder of opposite parties no. 1 & 2; complicated questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the allegations are of fraud, dishonesty and manipulation etc.; complainants are not consumers; they have got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint and complaint is false and vexatious. Inter-alia, their plea is that opposite party No.4 had obtained insurance cover note No. 76888 dated 20.1.2005 of personal accident insurance policy in the name of Kartar Singh deceased. Premium was paid by it. As per information received, Kartar Singh had died due to drowning on 4.8.2006. His death was not accidental. Inter-alia, their plea is that he had committed suicide by way of jumping into the canal. Before committing suicide, he had consumed heavy dose of liquor. As per terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company is not liable regarding any claim of death or injury:<br /> ( a ) From intentional self injury, suicide or attempted suicide.<br /> ( b ) Whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and other conditions. <br /> Sh. Harjit Singh, IPS (Retired) Superintendent of Police vide his report dated 30.10.2006 had concluded that deceased was not a swimmer. Still he jumped into the canal while under heavy influence of liquor. Investigator had placed on record duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh who was working as Sweeper in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and was accompanying the deceased. He had seen the deceased jumping into the canal. Liquor was consumed by him with the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record by the complainants that they are the only heirs of the deceased nor any succession certificate is on the record. Claim was lodged by Mohinder Kaur complainant which has been rightly repudiated. They deny that signatures of Sh. Baldev Singh were obtained by misrepresentation on already prepared documents. In the affidavit dated 4.10.2006, it has been mentioned that the contents of the affidavit were read over and explained to him (Baldev Singh) and after admitting them as correct, he appended his signatures. Moreover, stamp papers for preparing the affidavit were brought by Baldev Singh himself. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.4 filed separate reply admitting that deceased Kartar Singh was serving as Peon/Daftri in it. He had obtained Personal Accident Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Divisional Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide cover note No. 76888 dated 10.1.2005. It denies paras No. 4 to 8 of the complaint for want of knowledge. Its prayer is that complaint against it may be dismissed.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence the affidavit of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, complainant No. 1 (Ex.C.1) and of S/Sh. Jasbir Singh, Head Cashier, Puran Singh, Manjit Singh and Baldev Singh (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.5) respectively, copy of death certificate of Kartar Singh (Ex.C.6), photocopy of post mortem report (Ex.C.7), photocopy of insurance cover note (Ex.C.8), photocopy of claim form (Ex.C.9), photocopy of letter dated 5.12.2006 (Ex.C.10), photocopy of D.D.R dated 5.8.2006 (Ex.C.11) and photocopy of Inquest Report dated 5.8.2006 (Ex.C.12).<br /> 5. On behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3, reliance has been placed on affidavits of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal, Advocate, S.P Sharma, Deputy Manager, Harjit Singh, Investigator and Baldev Singh which are Ex.R.1, Ex.R.5 to Ex.R.7 respectively, photocopies of letters dated 8.10.2006 and 28.9.2006 (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.10), photocopy of Investigation report of Sh. Harjit Singh (Ex.R.3), photocopy of statement of Sh. Baldev Singh (Ex.R.4), photocopy of terms and conditions of Personal Accident Policy (Ex.R.8), photocopy of one page of attendance register (Ex.R.9) and photocopy of one page of Register of Employees (Ex.R.11). Opposite party No.4 did not lead any evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainants and opposite parties No. 1 to 3.<br /> 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that complainants are not consumers as there is no privity of contract with them, is not tenable. Ex.C.8 is the copy of the insurance cover note issued by Oriental Insurance Co. According to it, personal accident policy was purchased by opposite party No. 4 for Kartar Singh deceased, who was the husband of complainant No. 1 and father of complainants No. 2 to 4. As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, consumer is a person who hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration. Deceased was beneficiary and as such, became consumer. For this, we get support from the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi-2000 JRC-81. Any person who obtains insurance policy becomes entitled to its benefit in his capacity as insured. It is immaterial whether the insured contributes to the instalments himself or pays the premium from any other source. For this, reference may be made to the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Vipin Jain-2006(1)JRC-539. Admittedly, Kartar Singh has expired. Complainants being his legal heirs and legal representatives have stepped into his shoes. As per Section 2(1)(b), complainant means a consumer and in case of his death, his legal heir or representative. In this manner, there is privity of contract between the complainants and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by operation of law. Accordingly, they are consumers.<br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that insurance claim submitted by the complainant has been arbitrarily and illegally repudiated by the opposite insurance company vide letter (Ex.C.10) dated 5.12.2006. Opposite insurance company has failed to establish that deceased Kartar Singh was under heavy influence of liquor and he committed suicide. Affidavits of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh, Investigators, which are Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.6 and their reports dated 8.10.2006 and 30.10.2006 respectively, are not worth placing credence. This Forum is well within its right to examine the legality and validity of the reports of these Investigators. It is a case where repudiation of the claim cannot be sustained and complainants are entitled to the insurance claim amount alongwith interest as there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in not accepting the claim.<br /> 9. Mr. Sunder Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3 countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that signatures of Baldev Singh colleague of the deceased on the affidavit, copy of which is Ex.R.7, do not remain in dispute and when it is so, his affidavit cannot be discarded. For this, he drew our attention to the authority Mohammed Ali Vs. Abdul Sinab-2001(1)RCR (Criminal)-824. He further argued that reports of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh are reliable. Reports of Investigators are important documents and there must be sufficient reasons to reject them. For this, reliance is placed on the authorities Paam Eatables Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-2004(3)CLT-163 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores-2005(3)CLT-644. He next submitted that since no objections have been preferred by the complainants against the reports of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh, they deserve credence. To support it, he cited Deen Dayal Chamoli Vs. National Insurance Co.-2006(3)CLT-697. Moreover, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case as facts and circumstances show that deceased was under heavy influence of liquor and he committed suicide by way of jumping into the canal. In this connection, he cited Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Narain Shanker and another etc. etc.-AIR 1980 Supreme Court 695.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 11. Ex. C.10 is the repudiation letter dated 5.12.2006. A perusal of it reveals that opposite insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainants on the basis of the report of Sh. Harjit Singh by observing that in it, it has been concluded that deceased was under heavy influence of liquor at the time of alleged accident and that any accidental or loss arising out of such acts is an exclusive under the policy which is reproduced a under :-<br /> “Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured (s) from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide ( b ) whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs ( c ) whilst engaging in aviation or whilst mounting into or dismounting from or travelling in any aircraft other than as a passenger (fare paying or otherwise) in any duly licensed standard type of aircraft any where in world (d) directly or indirectly caused by venereal disease or insanity ( e ) arising or resulting from the insured committing any breach of law with criminal intent”<br /> 12. Some facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that Kartar Singh deceased was got insured by opposite party No. 4 under Personal Accident Insurance Policy. He was assured for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Copy of the insurance cover note is Ex. C.8 dated 10.1.2005. His death is not in dispute. Moreover, Ex.C.6 is the death certificate according to which he expired on 4.8.2006. Claim was submitted by complainant No. 1 and copy of the claim form is Ex.C.9. It has been repudiated on the grounds mentioned in Ex. C.10, the substantiative part of which has been reproduced as above. No-doubt, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of Paam Eatables Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores (Supra) that surveyor's report is an important document and there should be sufficient reasons to reject it. Copies of the investigation reports of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh, Investigators are Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3 respectively and their affidavits are Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.6 respectively. Forum is to determine as to whether the repudiation is valid or not. Contention of the insurance company that the reports of the Investigators i.e. S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh be accepted without considering their validity and legality, cannot be accepted in view of the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of M/s. Raj Kamal & Co. Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors-1992(1)CPR-333 (N.C) in which it has been held that if such contention of insurance company is accepted, then in every case it can get a report from the surveyor and repudiate the claim and thus, oust the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forums. The Redressal Forms, therefore, are bound to see whether or not the repudiation was made in good faith on valid and justifiable grounds. If the surveyor or surveyors choose to submit wrong report and the insurance company repudiates the claim without applying its mind, then the repudiation cannot be said to be justified. It has to be remembered that the surveyor's bread comes from their employers. Similar view has been held in the authorities Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy-1991 CPR-587 (N.C.), United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. M/s. Happy Karyana Stores-1997(1)CPC-347(Pb.) and United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Sobha Singh-2006(2)JRC-548. In this case, two Investigators were appointed by the opposite insurance company. Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal was deputed on 10.8.2006 by Senior Divisional Manager and he submitted his report dated 8.10.2006. Sh. Harjit Singh was deputed to investigate death claim of Kartar Singh on 19.9.2006 and his report is dated 30.10.2006. No reason has been explained by the opposite insurance company as to what was the necessity for appointing second Investigator i.e. Sh. Harjit Singh. From this, it appears that concerned officers of the opposite insurance company adopted dubious methods to repudiate the claim and the decision taken cannot be said to be an act done in good faith after due exercise of care and proper application of the mind. For this, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Smt. Manjulaben V. Parmar & Anr. Vs. L.I.C of India & Anr.-1992(1)CPR-227(N.C.).<br /> 13. Now question arises as to whether the reports of S/Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal and Harjit Singh are reliable. The reply to our minds is in the negative. Investigator may write anything but that will not take the place of proof. Every fact which is stated in the report of the Investigator has to be proved as a fact on record. Bare report of the Investigator is a worthless piece of paper as has been held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. Munni Lal Yadav-2001 J.R.C-634. Investigators were not present at the time of accident. Hence, of their own, they cannot say that deceased Kartar Singh was under the influence of liquor. For this, reference may be made to the authority United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pardeep Kumar-2002(2)CPC-156. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that opposite insurance company is not relying upon the report of Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal, copy of which is Ex.R.2, for repudiating the claim. They are depending upon the report of Sh. Harjit Singh as is evident from Ex.C.10. Basis of repudiation of the claim is alleged statement of Sh. Baldev Singh, copy of which is Ex.R.4 and copy of his affidavit Ex.R.7. So far as Ex.R.4 is concerned, it is undated. Apparently this alleged recorded statement is without oath. Its authorship is disputed. According to the report of Sh. Harjit Singh, Mr. Satish Kumar Advocate who was deputed by Divisional Manager, Bathinda on 10.8.2006 to investigate the claim, had produced an affidavit dated 4.10.2006 of Baldev Singh Sweeper of Oriental Bank of Commerce. It is further in this document that detailed statement of Baldev Singh was recorded by Mr. Satish. In the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal only thing mentioned by him is that Sh. Baldev Sigh had given his statement by way of affidavit dated 4.10.2006. There is no mention of statement, copy of which is Ex.R.4, in it. In Ex.R.2, he has not recorded that statement of Sh. Baldev Singh was recorded by him. Conclusion arrived at by him is that Kartar Singh was under the influence of liquor at the time of bathing in the canal at Beer Talab and he died due to drowning as he could not know how to swim. Affidavit of Sh. Harjit Singh is contradictory to his report, copy of which is Ex. R.3. In it, he claims that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Baldev Singh. Hence, the recording of the statement, copy of which is Ex.R.4, and its genuineness is a doubtful affair and as such, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 cannot avail any benefit from it. Copy of the affidavit dated 4.10.2006 is Ex.R.7 which has been relied upon by the opposite parties. According to Ex.R.9 which is the copy of the Attendance Register, Kartar Singh was on casual leave on 4th and 5th August, 2006. According to Ex.R.1, Baldev Singh was absent from duty on 4th and 5th August, 2006. As per copy of affidavit Ex.R.7, Baldev Singh stated that on 4.8.2006 he and Kartar Singh had consumed liquor. Thereafter, they had gone to village Beer Talab by boarding Bus and after that they went at the bridge of the canal. Kartar Singh jumped into the canal after putting off his clothes. He did not know swimming and on that account, he died due to drowning. Contents of this affidavit have been retracted by Baldev Singh in his affidavit Ex.C.5 according to which surveyor of the insurance company had brought typed stamp paper. His signatures were obtained representing that insurance claim was to be given to the heirs of Kartar Singh. He further stated that neither that writing was read by him nor was read over to him. In this affidavit dated 9.4.2007 he further stated that he and Kartar Singh did not consume liquor. They had gone to the canal to take bath. Due to slipping of the feet, Kartar Singh had fallen in the canal water and died due to drowning and that his death was not on account of taking some intoxicant or consuming liquor. Ex.C.5 nullifies the stand taken by opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Their contention that assured under the heavy influence of liquor committed suicide, cannot be accepted. For this, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Surjan Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India-1999(2)CPC-178. In that case as well affidavits of some persons to prove the case of death by suicide were obtained. Those persons later-on contradicted their statements made in the affidavits. Complaint was accepted and claim was allowed with costs by the Hon'ble State Commission by allowing the appeal.<br /> 14. Dead body of Kartar Singh was subjected to post mortem examination and copy of the post mortem report is Ex.C.7. There is nothing in it that the contents of stomach contained liquor. Rather, cause of death disclosed is asphyxia caused by drowning. In the absence of medico legal evidence that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he had fallen in the canal, the plea of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. In support of it, reference may be made to the authorities Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Karuna Sharma-I(2005)CPJ-416 and Study Circle Society & Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation-1999(1)CPR-482. So far as the authority Mohammed Ali Vs. Abdul Sinab (supra) relied upon by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 is concerned, it is distinguishable on facts. In that case cheque was issued and was signed by the person concerned and its columns were left blank. It was held that presumption would arise that the person signed the instrument on receiving consideration. Similarly, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 cannot derive any benefit from the authority Deen Dayal Chamoli Vs. National Insurance Co. (supra), particularly when they have not established in this case that copies of the reports of the Investigators were sent to the complainants. In such a situation, how could they file objections against the reports. After the claim has been repudiated, they have preferred this complaint. With utmost regard to the authority Prithvi Raj Bhandari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. & others (supra) upon which opposite parties No. 1 to 3 place reliance, is distinguishable on facts.<br /> 15. Stance of the opposite insurance company that the deceased committed suicide while under the influence of liquor, does not appeal to reason. In case, he was to commit suicide, the question of putting off the clothes by him before falling into the canal, did not arise. In case one is to commit suicide, he cannot think of putting off the clothes. Suicide can be committed even by wearing clothes. Fact that clothes were put off strengthens the plea of the complainants that he and Baldev Singh had gone to the canal in order to take bath and due to slipping, Kartar Singh had fallen in the canal and died due to drowning. Moreover, no evidence has been collected by the opposite parties that deceased was suffering from aggravated form of mental disorder or he had tendency of committing suicide. When evidence to this effect is lacking, repudiation of the claim is not justified. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Kaur-I(2001)CPJ-194, contention of the opposite insurance company was that deceased under the influence of liquor had committed suicide. There was no evidence to prove that deceased was suffering from mental disorder and he was losing balance. It was held that mere assertion that insured committed suicide under influence of liquor is not sufficient to repudiate the claim. Likewise is the authority Life Insurance Corporation of India through Sr. Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Shama Rani-1999(3)CPR-119. It is also worth mentioning that Kartar Singh had died on 4.8.2006. Daily Diary Report No. 20 dated 5.8.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.11, was got recorded by his son in the Police Station. On 5.8.2006, there was no dispute with the opposite insurance company. From the copy of DDR as well, plea of the complainants is supported. Even in the Inquest Report prepared by the Police, copy of which is Ex.C.12, there is no mention that deceased had consumed liquor or had committed suicide. Complainant Mohinder Kaur in her affidavit Ex.C.1 has reiterated her version which is supported by Jasvir Singh, Puran Singh and Manjit Singh whose affidavits are Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 respectively. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are relying upon copy of the terms and conditions of Personal Accident Policy (Individual), copy of which is Ex.R.8. This does not relate to the policy of the deceased. Opposite insurance company did not<br /> <br /> produce the file concerning the deceased. Contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case, is not tenable in view of the discussion made above.<br /> 16. From the forgoing discussion, we conclude that opposite insurance company has failed to prove the facts alleged in the reports of the Investigators. Plea that deceased under the influence of liquor had committed suicide by way of jumping into the canal, is not proved. To the contrary, it stands established that death of Kartar Singh deceased was accidental. Hence, repudiation of the insurance claim is not justified. It is illegal and arbitrary and as such, liable to be set-aside. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No 1 to 3 in repudiating the claim is writ large.<br /> 17. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants. In view of what has been discussed above, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to pay the insurance claim of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 5.12.2006 i.e. the date of repudiation of the claim till payment.<br /> 18. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 19. In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1 to 3 with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. So far as the complaint against opposite party No. 4 is concerned, it stands dismissed. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to do as under :- <br /> ( i ) Pay insurance claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 5.12.2006 till payment. Amount would be shared by the complainants equally.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order<br /> 20. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also<br /> <br /> consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 23.10.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />