| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.67 of 08-03-2017 Decided on 22-01-2018 Paramjit Kaur aged about 40 years widow of Lal Singh R/o Gali No.1/13, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bharat Nagar Branch, Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Manager. 2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, R.O. S.C.O 109-110-111, Sector- 17-D, Chandigarh. (Deleted) 3.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. & Head Office, Oriental House, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member Present:- For the complainant: Sh.H.S Khosa, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Deepak Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. For opposite party No.3: Sh.Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Paramjit Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that her husband namely Lal Singh obtained the housing loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce (opposite party No.1) and housing loan general account bearing No.16526015002401 was opened. The house loan was insured on 17.6.2015 at 11.50 A.M. vide covernote No.969080 under the scheme 'Abhiyasa Rin Bima Kavach' for the period of 10 years i.e. 17.6.2015 to 16.6.2025. The premium of Rs.6053/- was debited from the account of Lal Singh and opposite parties insured for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. It is alleged that on 15.1.2016 at about 11.00 AM, Lal Singh died in the accident and FIR No.8 dated 15.01.2016 U/s 279, 337, 338, 304A and 472 IPC was registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Bathinda. Thereafter the complainant approached the bank regarding the insured sum to be deposited in the housing loan account of her husband, but bank's official are delaying the matter and they did not return the insured sum of Rs.15 lakhs. On 7.4.2016, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was returned, which was deposited in the loan account. The bank official put the pressure upon the complainant to return the remaining loan amounts. The complainant demanded the policy covernote, but the matter was delayed on one or other pretext. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. She also got issued legal notice dated 30.1.2017 to opposite parties, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint is for refund of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum; Rs.3 lakhs as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel, but opposite party No.1 failed to file written version within the stipulated period whereas opposite party No.3 contested the complaint by filing its written version. In the written version, opposite party No.3 has raised the legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite party No.3. She has concealed the fact that there was insurance coverage of Rs.15 lakhs for residential building above the plinth and foundation only and personal accident insurance coverage of deceased Lal Singh for Rs.5 lakhs. This fact is clearly mentioned in the covernote No.969080 produced by the complainant on file and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has already been paid and no more amount is payable. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further legal objections are that the complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite party No.3. She has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. On merits, availing of loan by the husband of complainant is not denied and it is stated to be matter of record. It is denied that the house loan was got insured on 11.7.2015. It is further clarified that Lal Singh availed the housing loan and residential building above the plinth and foundation was insured for Rs.15 lakhs subject to terms and conditions. Lal Singh, being owner of the property, was insured for Rs.5 lakhs against personal accidental death. The amount of premium and period of insurance policy are stated to be matter of record. The death of Lal Singh, accident, date and registration of FIR etc. are also stated to be matter of record. In nutshell, the version of opposite party No.3 is that the personal accidental insurance was for Rs.5 lakhs, which has already been paid and nothing is payable. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 2.6.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of covernote, (Ex.C2); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C3); postal receipts, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankit Kumar dated 16.8.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of insurance policy schedule, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.OP1/3) and submitted written arguments. Opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Roop Lal Baleem dated 6.9.2017, (Ex.OP3/1); photocopy of policy schedule, (Ex.OP3/2); photocopy of claim payment voucher, (Ex.OP3/3); photocopy of affidavit of Lovepreet Kaur etc. (LRs. of Lal Singh), (Ex.OP3/4); photocopy of misc. accident claim scrutiny form, (Ex.OP3/5); photocopy of investigation report dated 16.2.2016, (Ex.OP3/6); photocopy of petition, (Ex.OP3/7); photocopy of case details, (Ex.OP3/8); photocopy of zimni order, (Ex.OP3/9); photocopy of claim form, (Ex.OP3/10) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.1. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The controversy is whether Lal Singh was insured for Rs.15 lakhs or Rs.5 lakhs as asserted by opposite party No.3. The complainant has placed on record copy of covernote, (Ex.C2). This document proves that the personal accidental coverage was for Rs.5 lakhs and not for Rs.15 lakhs. No other document or covernote has been brought on record by the complainant to prove that her husband was insured for Rs.15 lakhs in case of accidental death. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has also produced on record copy of policy schedule, (Ex.OP1/2). It shows that the insurance was up to Rs.15 lakhs in case of fire and allied perils to the building and in personal accident, a sum assured was Rs.5 lakhs. Opposite party No.3 has also placed on record policy schedule, (OP3/2). Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that her husband was insured for Rs.15 lakhs in case of personal accident. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 have been able to prove that the husband of the complainant was insured for Rs.5 lakhs only. Admittedly, this amount has been paid to the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 3. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 22-01-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
