Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/110/2011

Smt. Rama Rani w/o late Shri Arun Shukla - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Partap Singh

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 110 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 09.02.2011     

                                                                                          Date of decision: 27.01.2017

1. Smt. Rama Rani, aged about 33 years, wife of late Shri Arun Shukla.
2. Miss Shalini minor daughter of Arun Shukla,
3. Miss Anjali minor daughter of Sh. Arun Shukla,
4. Bal Mukand minor son of Sh. Arun Shukla, minors through their mother Smt. Rama Rani being next friend and natural guardian, resident of behind Kali Mandir, H. No. 1537/1, Near Kukharjee Park, Jagadhri.

    …Complainants.

                                                            Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Christian Hospital, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, Regd. Office 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                              ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Surinder Partap Singh, Advocate counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Pardeep Garg, Advocate, counsel for Respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed by Smt. Rama Rani widow and her children being LRs of deceased Arun Shukla under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that deceased Arun Shukla obtained a loan for house construction from OP No.1 in the year 2006 and he was paying the installments of the loan regularly. At the time of disbursement of the loan to the deceased Arun Shukla, the Op No.1 had obtained an insurance policy in respect of life of deceased Sh. Anun Shukla bearing policy No. 54017530 certificate No. PNB/1PH/Mar. 06/1082 and master policy bearing No. 54008336 w.e.f. 10.03.2006 to 09.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-.  It has been further mentioned that Sh. Arun Shukla died on 28.05.2006 and the complainants informed the OP No.1 Bank and OP No.1 Bank obtained the signature of the complainant for self and on behalf of the minors and assured that their claim paper will be sent to the OP No.2 for settlement of the claim. It was also told that the claim amount so received shall be adjusted against the housing loan taken by deceased Arun Shukla. Thereafter, complainants visited the Op No.1 so many times to know about the fate of the claim but she always assured that it will be settled soon. However, complainants were surprised to receive notice from the Op No.1 Bank where it was informed that premises of the complainants i.e. residential house is being put to auction for recovery of outstanding dues. On it, the complainant No.1 went to the office of Op No.1 Bank and they told that no claim had been received form OP No.2 so they will recover their dues by sale of house in question. The OP No.1 Bank has neither adjusted the amount deposited by the complainant nor provided statement of account. As per law on account of death of husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 4 i.e. Sh. Arun Kumar Shukla, the OP No.2 Insurance Company was liable to pay the insured amount and the same should be adjusted against the outstanding loan amount in respect of house loan taken by the said deceased Arun Shukla. The Op No.1 is threatening to put the house in question of the complainants to auction and sale for recovery of the outstanding loan amount wrongly and illegally and in case they succeed the complainants shall suffer heavily. The above noted act and conduct of the Ops shows that they are guilty of deficient and negligent services to the complainants. Lastly, it has been prayed that Ops be directed to pay the insured amount and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as :-there is no relationship of service provider between the complainants and the Op No.1; the complaint is totally false and frivolous against the Op No.1 and on merit it has been admitted that Sh. Arun Shukla obtained loan for house construction in the year 2006, from the Op No.1 Bank however, it is denied that he had deposited the installments of the loan regularly. It has also been admitted that at the time of disbursing the loan to Sh. Arun Shukla, the Op No.1 Bank had obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 54017530 valid w.e.f 10.03.2006 to 09.03.2016 issued by IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. i.e. OP No.2. As per policy the following was covered:

(i)         Standard Fire and Special Perils including Earthquake for the sum insured Rs. 9,00,000/-

            (ii)        Personal Accident against death, permanent total disablement and loss of limbs for the sum insured Rs.9,00,000/-.

It has been further denied that the complainants informed the OP No.1 about the death of said Arun Shukla and was aware the date of death of Arun Shukla as alleged in the complaint. It has been further denied that Op No.1 has assured the complainants that their claim papers will be sent to the Op No1 for settlement of the claim as alleged. The Op No.1 Bank neither obtained any signature of complainant No.1 for settlement of claim nor the complainant No.1 approached the Op Bank for settlement of claim as the complainants never informed that the death of Sh. Arun Shukla was accidental. However, Sh. Arun Shukla was defaulter and after his death, the complainants are also defaulter in payment of housing loan as such the house in question which was mortgaged with Op No.1 Bank was liable to be sold in auction and OP No.1 Bank was entitled to claim the amount of loan by auctioning the house in question. It has been further mentioned that OP No.1 has no objection to adjust the amount towards the loan amount of Sh. Arun Shukla if same is paid by Op No.2 Insurance Company. The complainants can independently settle the claim with the OP No.2 without intervention of the OP No.1. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

3.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts just to get the claim amount; this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; a complicated question is involved in the present complaint and as such only Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the present complaint, as a matter of fact the complainant or OP No.1 had not lodged any claim with OP No.2 till date regarding the death of Sh. Arun Shukla, hence the present complaint deserves dismissal qua OP No.2 on this score; the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as it is crystal clear from the averments made in the complaint that Sh. Arun Shukla died on 28.05.2006 and the cause of action has arisen to the complainants on the death of Sh. Arun Shukla but neither the complainants nor Op No.1 Bank had lodged any claim with the OP Insurance Company till date. As such, the complaint is hopelessly time barred as per judgment titled as V.N. Shrikhanda (Dr. Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011 (1) CLT page 262 and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Rama Rani complainant No.1 as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of death certificate of Arun Kumar Shukla as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance certificate as Annexure C-2, Photocopy of notice dated 09.01.2010 for auction of property as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

5.                     Counsel for Op No.1 Bank failed to adduce any evidence despite availing so many opportunities being last with costs, hence evidence of Op No.1 was closed by court order dated 13.05.2016.

6.                     Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. S.K. Chhabra Vice President Iffco Tokio Gen Ins. Co. as Annexure RW/A and document such as photo copy of PNB Home Property Policy as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that the husband of complainant No.1 took a loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- in the year 2006 from the Op No.1 Bank for construction of house. It is also not disputed that the Op No.1 Bank had obtained an insurance policy bearing No.54008336 w.e.f. 10.03.2006 to 09.03.2016 in respect of life of Sh. Arun Kumar Shukla from Op No.2 Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the husband of complainant No.1 died on 28.05.2006 which is evident from death certificate Annexure C-1.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainants argued that the complainants are entitled to get the insured amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the Op No.2 as it was the duty of the OP No.1 Bank to lodge the claim with the OP No.2 Insurance Company and draw our attention towards the death certificate (Annexure C-1) and Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2).

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for Op No.1Bank argued at length that the complainants never informed the OP No.1 Bank in regard to the death of deceased Sh. Arun Shukla. Learned counsel for Op No.1 further argued that even the complainants neither submitted any documents with the Op No.1 Bank nor moved any application for lodging the claim with Op No.2, as alleged in the complaint. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.2 Insurance Company argued at length that neither the Op No.1 Bank nor the complainant has ever lodged the claim with the Op No.2 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for Op No.2 Insurance Company further argued that even till today the complainants have failed to place on file any copy of FIR, DDR, Postmortem report or any medical treatment papers to prove that the deceased Arun Shukla had died due to accidental injuries. Learned counsel for OpNo.2 further draw our attention towards the death certificate Annexure C-1 and argued that as per death certificate, deceased Arun Shukla died on 28.05.2006 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 09.02.2011 which is hopelessly time barred and draw our attention towards section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act wherein the limitation for filing the complaint is 2 years. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.2.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that firstly the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the deceased Arun Shukla died on 28.05.2006 which is duly evident from the death certificate Annexure C-1 but the present complaint has been filed on 09.02.2011. Neither any application for condonation of delay has been filed nor any explanation for not filing the complaint in time has been disclosed in the complaint itself. Further, on merit also, the complainants have totally failed to prove that the deceased Arun Shukla had died due to accidental injuries as no such documents i.e. postmortem report, copy of FIR, DDR or any medical treatment record has been placed on file to prove the same. Further, the complainants have also totally failed to prove that they have ever lodged any claim with the OP No.1 Bank or Op No.2 Insurance Company on account of death of deceased Arun Shukla. Even not a single iota of word has been mentioned in the complaint that on what date and month the claim on account of death of deceased Arun Shukla was lodged with the OP No.2 Insurance Company.

13.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hopelessly time barred and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 27.01.2017.

 

                        (S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                         MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                        D.C.D.R.F,YAMUNANAGAR