Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/55

Sheela Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      55

Date of Institution:  19.02.2016

Date of Decision :   10.06.2016

 

 Sheela Dhillon wd/o Pawandeep Singh, s/o Sukhchain Singh r/o Village Gurusar Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Old Grain Market, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2.  Gurjot Kaur w/o Sukhchain Singh s/o Basant  r/o Village Gurusar Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                                                                       .......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Deep Chand Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-1

              Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim worth Rs. 1,16,625/- pertaining to insurance policy bearing no. 233702/ 31 / 2013/ 6218 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses.

2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the husband of complainant was owner in possession of  vehicle bearing no. RJ 07 GA 9604 and he got insured the same with OP-1 vide policy no. 233702/31/2013/6218, which met with an accident and got damaged. Husband of complainant died in said accident and after his death complainant and OP-2 are the legal heirs of Pawandeep Singh as there is no issue from the wedlock of complainant and her husband. After death of her husband, all formalities for obtaining claim were completed and claim was submitted by complainant and OP-2 being dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. After verification, OP-1 passed claim of Rs 1,16,625/- and assured that claim would be paid shortly. Thereafter, OP demanded succession certificate vide letter dt 12.03.2015. It is contended that demand of succession certificate by OP-1 is illegal as both the complainant and her husband lived jointly as husband and wife and there is no other legal heir of deceased Pawandeep Singh except OP-2. By demanding this certificate, they are intentionally harassing the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant for which she has prayed for directions to OP-1 to pay the insurance claim worth Rs 1,16,625/- and Rs 50,000/- as compensation besides cost of litigation. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                        The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.02.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                               On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op as complainant has failed to furnish the succession certificate regarding inheritance of deceased Pawandeep Singh whom she claim to be her husband. It is asserted that Insurance Policy was purchased by Pawandeep Singh s/o Sukhchain Singh, who has expired and OP-1 asked complainant to furnish succession certificate, but instead of providing the same, complainant has filed the present complaint. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that Pawandeep Singh husband of Sukhchain Singh got insured his vehicle bearing no. RJ 07 GA 9604 with OP vide policy no. 233702/31/2013/6218 for the period from 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014. It is asserted that OP-1 does not know whether complainant is the widow of Pawandeep Singh. Moreover, answering OP is not aware whether complainant and OP-2 are the legal heirs of deceased Pawandeep Singh. They are required to produce the succession certificate to prove their entitlement for receiving the claim. It is further averred that complainant has not completed all the formalities regarding insurance of damaged vehicle and has not produced succession certificate to OP-1 to prove that she is the entitled person to receive the claim. Without furnishing the succession certificate, OP-1 cannot settle the claim of complainant and OP-2. Denying the allegations of complainant, OP-1 asserted that their demand regarding submission of succession certificate is not illegal, rather same is genuine and is requirement as per law as this succession certificate is must to settle the claim of insurance.  Despite repeated demands by answering OP, complainant has no produced succession certificate to them and without succession certificate, OPs can not ascertain that who is the legal heir of deceased. To obtain insurance claim, complainant is duty bound to supply all the requisite documents including succession certificate. It is further averred that succession certificate required by OP for ascertaining the right person to receive the claim, is not furnished by anybody. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all the other allegations levelled by complainants have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                     OP-2 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that name of OP-2 is Gurjot Kaur and it is wrongly mentioned as Gurjeet Kaur in the title of complaint. It is averred that answering OP is the mother of deceased Pawandeep Singh and she is entitled to take equal share from complainant. However on merits, OP-2 has admitted all the paras given in complaint to be true and correct and asserted that she is the mother of Pawandeep Singh, who dies in said accident and being legal heir of deceased Pawandeep Singh, she  is                             also entitled to receive the equal share in insurance claim.

6                                         Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case.  Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sheela Dhillon as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Vikas Kataria, Branch Manager OIC as Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the evidence.  Ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurjeet Kaur/OP-2 as Ex OP-2/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally contented that husband of complainant was owner in possession of  vehicle bearing no. RJ 07 GA 9604 and he got insured the same with OP-1 vide policy no. 233702/31/2013/6218. It is further contended that insured vehicle met with an accident and got damaged and husband of complainant also died in said accident and after his death complainant and OP-2 are the legal heirs of Pawandeep Singh as there is no issue from the wedlock of complainant and her husband. Thereafter, complainant completed all formalities for obtaining claim and claim was submitted by complainant and OP-2 being dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. After verification, OP-1 passed claim of Rs 1,16,625/- and assured that claim would be paid shortly, but thereafter, OP-1 demanded succession certificate vide letter dt 12.03.2015. It is further contended that this demand of succession certificate raised by OP-1 is illegal as both the complainant and her husband lived jointly as husband and wife and there is no other legal heir of deceased Pawandeep Singh except OP-2. By demanding this certificate, they are intentionally harassing the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant and she has prayed for making payment of insurance claim of Rs.1,16,625/-alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9                                       To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that Insurance Policy was purchased by Pawandeep Singh s/o Sukhchain Singh, who has expired and OP-1 asked complainant to furnish succession certificate, but instead of providing the same, complainant has filed the present complaint. It is further averred that complainant has not completed all the formalities regarding insurance of damaged vehicle and has not produced succession certificate to OP-1 to prove that she is the entitled person to receive the claim. Without succession certificate, OP-1 cannot settle the claim of complainant and OP-2. Moreover, OP-1 is not aware whether complainant and OP-2 are the legal heirs of deceased Pawandeep Singh. It is further averred that succession certificate is mandatory for ascertaining the entitlement of legal heirs to receive the insurance claim.

10                                      Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that Gurjot Kaur is the mother of deceased Pawandeep Singh and she is entitled to take equal share in insurance claim. It is further asserted that she is the mother of Pawandeep Singh, who died in said accident and being legal heir of deceased Pawandeep Singh, she is also entitled to receive the equal share in insurance claim.

11                                        The case of the complainant is that her husband got insured his vehicle with OPs and during accident, her husband died and after his death complainant completed all formalities and submitted claim documents to OP-1 for obtaining the insurance claim of her deceased husband. After verification, OPs passed the claim, but they started demanding succession certificate and did not make payment of insurance claim to complainant. This act of OP-1 has caused harassment to complainant. In reply, OP-1 asserted that succession certificate is mandatory document for ascertaining the entitlement of real claimant. This demand of succession certificate is genuine and it is required to ensure that complainant and O-2 are right persons to receive the claim of deceased Pawandeep Singh. Succession certificate is a necessary document and both complainant as well as OP-2 have failed to submit the same to OP-1. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made. OP-2 argued that she is the mother of deceased Pawandeep Singh and is entitled for equal share in insurance claim claimed by complainant.

12                                     Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant and OP-2 are the only legal heirs of deceased being his wife and mother respectively and except them there is no other legal heir of Pawandeep Singh deceased and there is no dispute regarding inheritance of Pawandeep Singh deceased. The OP-1 cannot demand succession certificate regarding inheritance of Pawandeep Singh as except complainant and OP-2, none has claimed the amount of claim from OP-1. The demand of succession certificate by OP-1 is illegal. Moreover, as per Indian Succession Act, the issuance of succession certificate only discharged the debtor from the liability to repay the amount to any other person and holder of succession certificate is only trustee and is liable to pay the amount to true successor. He is not owner of debt. If later on any person claims inheritance of Pawandeep Singh deceased, he can recovr the amount of his share from complainant and OP-2 and by paying the amount of claim to complainant and OP-2, Op-1 is discharged from his liability and only complainant and OP-2 will be liable to that person. In his support, he has placed reliance on judgment 2015 (1) CLT page 196 titled as Sumitra Godara Vs Br. Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 39 & Indian Succession Act – Insurance Policy-Succession certificate- Held –The need of succession certificate arises only where claimants are more than one or the debtor is not sure about the succession of the dead creditor-As per Indian Succession Act, issuance of certificate of succession only discharges the debtor from liability to repay the amount to any other person-The holder of the succession certificate is only trustee and is liable to pay the amount to the true successor-Succession certificate holder is not owner of the debt- Hence, any Civil Court or Consumer Fora can decide whether the complainant or plaintiff is successor or not. As such, OP-1 can not pressurize the complainant to obtain succession certificate before releasing the amount of insurance claim to them.

13                                        We have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant and OPs and also gone through the pleadings and evidence lead by parties and case law produced by complainant.

14                                  After careful perusal of the record, we are of considered opinion that OP-1 can not demand succession certificate from complainant and OP-2 for releasing their insurance claim in the name of Pawandeep Singh deceased as they did not allege that there is any other legal heir except complainant and the OP-2 and anyone who approaches them asserting himself to be the legal heir of Pawandeep Singh deceased and the act of OP-1 in not releasing the insurance claim in the name of Pawandeep Singh amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. OP-1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,16,625/-, which is assessed by Surveyor vide Survey Report Ex C-4 alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 19.02.2016 till final realization. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant as litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.06.2016                 

 

                   Member            Member                   President

                                      (P Singla)         (Parampal Kaur)      (Ajit Aggarwal)