Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/24

Iqbal kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Chetan Kumar Gupta

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  24 of 04.05.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :     20 .03.2018

 

 

Iqbal Kaur, aged about 47 years, wife of Sarabjit Singh, resident of VPO Purkhali, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, Rupnagar  

2. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

3. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Village Purkhali, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Chetan Kuamr Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. H.C.Verma, Advocate. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh.Amandeep Kaplas,  Advocate. counsel for O.Ps. No.2&3 

 

ORDER

                                   

Smt. Iqbal Kaur Singh through her counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum as compensation on account of harassment.   

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses   

 

2.                             The brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2007, her deceased husband Sarabjit Singh, was returning from Manikarn Sahib, in the car, in which 3-4 persons were travelling and met with the accident with truck near Nagesavi police station Oat District Mandi (H.P.) and the car fell down in the Bias River. Kaka Singh, Amar Singh and Kesar Singh were saved by the local police and Sarabjit Singh and other friends drowned in the river. The dead body of Sarabjit Singh was not recovered from the river. The deceased was having a saving account No.2225 with the O.P. No.3, now her account number has been changed now account number is 173434028100073. She obtained the decree regarding the declaration of death of her husband from the court. She applied for granting Rs.1,00,000/- along with all documents on 18.10.2016 from O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2 and OP No.3 but no reply has been received. It is further stated that the letter dated 18.10.2016 was issued by the District Manager Central Cooperative Bank to the Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Roper, but no information has been received so far regarding the process of case. The cooperative Bank gave circular regarding the insurance of death claim up to 1 Lakh. Six months have been lapsed but no reply received so far. Hence, this complaint.    

3.                On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for the O.P No.1 have filed written version taking preliminary objections: that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP; that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is not within time. On merits, it is stated that the letter dated 18.10.2016 has been received by the company from District Manager Central Cooperative Bank without any supporting document and the claim form, post mortem report, copy of DDR/FIR, passbook, particulars of insurance policy and other supporting documents for registering a claim. The letter received has been sent to the controlling office Mohali by the OP NO.1 and instead of waiting the outcome of the said letter the complainant has filed the present complaint, which is not maintainable. The complainant has to apply to the answering O.P. within in a period of 12 months from the date of the loss. The date of incident is in July 2007 and the letter has been sent on 18.10.2016 without the documents and the particulars of the insurance and thus the complaint is time barred. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

4.                    The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 & 3 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant is neither competent nor maintainable against the answering OPs; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has no approached this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts; that the complaint is based on totally false and fabricated facts and is misuse of process of law. On merits, it is stated that the account No.2225 is running in the bank of answering OPs in the name of Sarabjit Singh son of Harcharan Singh, resident of Village and post office Purkhali, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. The answering O.P. No.3 referred the letter of the complainant to the answering OP No.2 and OP No.2 vide letter No.6515 dated 18.10.2016 has launched insurance claim under policy for the year 2007-2008 issued under Sehkari Bank Beema Yojna Scheme from OP No.1 but till to date the OP NO.1 has not released the insurance claim amount. It is further stated that as per provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed there under, in case of any dispute between parties, the same should have been referred to the Arbitrator under Section 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed there under. As such, if there is any dispute between the parties, then the best procedure for the complainant is to move application under Section 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed there under.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

5.                    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP NO.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. BK Goyal, Sr. Branch Manager Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Tarlochan Singh, Branch Manager, The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Purkhali Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence .

6.                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                    Complainant counsel Sh. Chetan Kumar Gupta argued that on the fateful day on 08.07.2007, incident occurred when deceased Sarabjit Singh was returning from Manikarn in a car along with 3-4 persons and the car met with an accident with truck near Nagesavi, Police Station Oat, District Mandi (H.P.). As a result of which, car fell down in the Beas river. Some persons were saved but Sarabjit Singh and Amarjit Singh etc. drowned in the river. Dead body of Amarjit Singh was recovered to whom the OP insurance company paid the policy benefits, but dead body of Sarabjit Singh not recovered that is why Sarabjit Singh remain unheard for the last about 7/8 years. Then the complainant being the LR of Sarabjit Singh filed civil suit No.51 dated 01.04.2015 to declare the death of Sarabjit Singh since 08.07.2007 relying upon the FIR No.97/07 under Section 337 and 304-A of IPC. When the Civil Court concluded the evidence and finally give the verdict/decision dated 25.5.2016 that said Sarabjit Singh is unheard since 08.07.2007 and presumed to be died. That judgment is placed on file by complainant Ex.C7. Then the learned counsel argued that after the decision of the Civil Court death entry of Sarabjit Singh made in the register of birth and death i.e. Ex.C1. Lastly by referring the documentary evidence, prayed to allow the complaint being insurance, death and complainant is LR are proved by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.

8.                    Sh.H.C. Verma, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1 argued that firstly complainant not placed on file copy of the policy, if copy not on the file then no benefit can be extended. Secondly, there is delay in declaring the death and filing the complaint because the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of occurrence that is why hopelessly complaint time barred. Then the learned counsel argued that no benefit can be extended relying upon the documents executed between the complainant and OPs. No.2 & 3. So complaint is without merit and same be dismissed.

9.                    Sh. Amandeep Kaplas, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 argued that deceased was having account and because of the account and also on the ground there was group policy of the account holder, request was made to the OP No.1 for the payment but no response. The learned counsel supported the claim of the complainant and prayed that neither there is delay in lodging the claim nor no benefit can be extended because of non producing of the policy as OP No.1 has already extended the benefit of policy to the LR of deceased Amarjit Singh. Firstly the forum is to appreciate whether it is a consumer dispute or not. Complainant Iqbal Kaur approached to this Forum being widow of deceased Sarabjit Singh, who was lost in the incident dated 08.07.2007, thereafter, the Civil Court declared the death and the death was registered.

10.                  OPs. No.2 & 3 are the bank and the bank proved account of SarabjitSingh then proved that the account holder was having group policy. So without going detail, it is held that it is a consumer dispute and the complaint is maintainable.

11.                           On merit, the learned counsel for the OP No.1, Sh. H.C. Verma, argued that complainant not placed on file copy of the policy that is why no benefit can be extended. To strengthen the arguments, the learned counsel referred application dated 15.9.2017, its reply file by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention that this complaint was filed in the month of May 2017 and on notice OP appears and OP No.1 filed reply dated 06.07.2017. If there was need of policy or complaint was filed without policy then why the OP NO.1 i.e. insurance company filed reply. During the pendency of complaint moved the application which is to linger on the claim dated 15.9.2017 that direction be given to the complainant to produce the policy. When already insurance company has extended the benefit of policy in favour of Narinder Kaur widow of Amarjit Singh, who died in the incident dated 8.7.2007 then there is no need to the complainant either to place on file the policy or to bring on record any documentary evidence. It was for the insurance company either to deny the payment of benefit of policy in favour of Narinder Kaur or to deny that in the incident dated 8.7.2007 deceased has no right for the benefit of policy relying upon the account. The Forum has come to the conclusion that non producing the policy by the complainant on the file does not give any benefit to the OP rather when OP (insurance company) already paid the benefit of death of Amarjit Singh, to his LRs then the arguments qua policy are without merit.

12.                           Learned counsel for the OP NO.1 argued that there is unexplained delay in lodging the claim as the claim should be filed within two years from the date of occurrence. Further, learned counsel argued that when the occurrence dated 8.7.2007 then limitation starts immediately and it expires on 8.7.2009. At the same time complainant counsel argued that Sarabjit Singh being unheard for the last about 7 years.  Civil Court declare death only thereafter cause of action to file the complaint accrued. There is no need to repeat the pleadings as well as evidence because to proves the occurrence dated 08.07.2007.  Complainant placed on file copy of FIR Ex.C8 then relying upon the said FIR complainant approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court file its judgment dated 25.5.2016 declared the death of Sarabjit Singh on the request of Iqbal Kaur widow. Further, on the basis of Civil Court judgment dated 25.5.2016, the register birth and death made entry, copy of which is Ex.C6. OPs No.2 & 3 made written request Ex.C2 to the insurance company for the benefit of insurance policy in favour of Iqbal Kaur i.e. dated 18.10.2016. More so, Narinder Kaur also made request to the OP No.1 dated 27.8.2007, copy of which Ex.C3 for extending the benefit of the policy. Again there is request Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 is written request of the policy benefit.

13.                           Without going detail, Forum has come to the conclusion that FIR was registered qua the incident dated 8.7.2007 but dead body of Sarabjit Singh was not recovered from the Bias River that is why under the law, Iqbal Kaur has to wait for 7 years. In the enactment, it is made clear that the person who is unheard for the last about more than 7 years then to be presumed dead. So this happened in the case in hand that is why vide judgment dated 25.5.2016 the Civil Court declared death of Sarabjit Singh and entry qua the death was made then complainant approached to the OP NO.1 and when no payment made then to approach this Forum. So there is no delay in lodging the FIR and the claim is genuine and Iqbal Kaur is entitled for the benefit of policy being LR/widow of Sarabjit Singh.

14.                           In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed in favour of complainant with the directions to the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum since the occurrence dated 8.7.2007 with cost of Rs.5000/- till its realization.

15.                           The O.P. No.1 is directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  

16.                           The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties     forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the        file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                   Dated .20.03.2018                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER