DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA
Complaint no. 240 Instituted on: 03.11.2014
Decided on: 02.03.2015
Manjit Kaur w/o Hakam Singh son of Sohan Singh resident of village Kattu Balian, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Pearls PACL India Limited, SCF-24, Near Improvement Trust, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. PACL India Limited, Regd. Office 22 3rd Floor Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur through its M.D./GM.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri N.K.Sharma, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Karnail Singh, Member
Vandna Sidhu, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Manjit Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that son of the complainant namely Randhir Singh obtained an investment plan bearing registration no. U017141913 dated 12.03.2010 from the OPs which was to be matured on 12.09.2015. Mode of premium was quarterly with premium installment of Rs.1050/- each and payment plan was for a period of 5 ½ years. Complainant was appointed as nominee under the said scheme. Under the said scheme OPs agreed to provide a plot of 450 sq. yards or maturity amount of Rs.32700/- to the customers and further the customer is also provided accidental risk cover to the tune of Rs.33750/- . On 30.10.2013 Randhir Singh , DLA met with an accident and he died due to injuries sustained and an FIR no.372 dated 30.10.2013 was also lodged at P.S.Kanwan, District Dhar (M.P). The complainant submitted all the documents as demanded by the OP No.1 and requested for the payment of claim amount i.e. maturity amount along with accidental death benefit. In the month of April 2014, the OP No.1 asked the complainant to submit declaration and undertaking so that the payment could be made to her. Thereafter the complainant submitted demanded declaration and undertaking but after about 15 days OP No.1 returned the claim documents of the complainant and told that no amount is payable to her. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.32700/- as maturity amount and to pay Rs.32750/- on account of death of life assured due to accident along with interest @18% from the date of death till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and cause of action have been taken up. It is stated that M/s PACL Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and it is engaged in the real estate business. It is neither an insurance company nor involved in any such kind of activities. It also deals with the business of sale, purchase and allotment of land/plots to its customer. It is stated that if the customer dies during the plan his/her nominee or the legal heir/ successor can continue the payment plan on furnishing written request to the OPs. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant’s son executed an agreement with the OPs for allotment for land. The complainant had to deposit Rs.1050/- quarterly from 12.03.2010 till 12.09.2015 but till date he deposited only Rs.15750/- . It is further submitted that the agreement was for allotment of plot and future value of the said land was Rs.32730/- . The complainant had to regularly deposit the said installment and after the given time the complainant had to deposit the d9ocuments with the OP if they wanted sale consideration instead of the plot. There was no clause for accidental risk cover in the said agreement. It is denied that complainant is entitled for the expected sale consideration of Rs.32730/-. It is denied that there is any compensation of Rs.33750/- on account of death of complainant as the OP is not an insurance company. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-22 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.
4. It is an admitted fact that son of the complainant had obtained an investment plan and deposited the amount with the OP No.1. It is also admitted that Randhir Singh has died on 30.10.2013 during the subsistence of the investment plan/policy. It is also admitted by the OPs that Randhir Singh had deposited Rs.15750/- during his life time by depositing Rs.1050/- as quarterly installment. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant being the nominee and legal heir of Randhir Singh is entitled for the benefits of the scheme. Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that along with the plan an accidental risk cover was provided by the OPs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has stated that OP is neither an insurance company nor involved in any such kind of activities. Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that OPs are doing the business real estate and sale/purchase of plots and no insurance cover was issued to the deceased by the OPs and if the customer dies during the plan his/ her nominee or the legal heir/ successor can continue the payment plan on furnishing written request to the OPs. There was no clause for accidental risk cover in the said agreement.
5. We have gone through all the documents minutely and also heard both the learned counsel for the parties. We find that there is no dispute between the parties that during the subsistence of the plan Randhir Singh son of the complainant died in an accident of which an FIR was lodged and post mortem was conducted which are Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-9 respectively on record. We have also perused Ex.C-3 in which it is clearly mentioned that in Plan No.1-1, Time:66 months/5 ½ years ( Code No.53) the person who obtained the said plan can deposit Rs360/- per month or Rs.1050/- quarterly. It is also clearly mentioned that accidental risk cover is Rs.33750/- if he deposits Rs.1050/- quarterly. In the present case it is also admitted fact that Randhir Singh deceased had taken an investment plan of Rs.1050/- quarterly and it was for the 66 months. So, the complainant being legal heir and nominee of the deceased Randhir Singh is entitled for the accidental risk cover benefit as per plan number 1-1 Ex.C-3 and the OPs have declined her request after receiving all the documents wrongly. As such OPs are deficient in service by not providing the accidental risk cover amount to the complainant. We are of the vide that the complainant is entitled for the accidental risk amount of Rs.33750/- because the total consideration to be paid was Rs.22500/- and the complainant is also entitled for Rs.15750/- deposited by the deceased Randhir Singh with the OPs during his life time.
6. So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.33750/- to the complainant as accidental risk cover amount and also to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15750/- as deposited by the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the above said ordered amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
March 2, 2015
( Vandna Sidhu) ( Karnail Singh) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
