Haryana

Karnal

CC/137/2020

Bimlesh Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 137 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.03.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:12.06.2023

 

Bimlesh Devi, aged 56 years, wife of late Shri Som Pal Rana, resident of village Gondar, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal (Aadhar no.7337 8835 9154).

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, G. T. Road, First Floor, City Centre, near Bank of Rajasthan, Panipat through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.     SREI Equipment Finance Limited and consortium of Bankers with UCO Bank as Leader, SCO 130-131, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh: 160022.

 

3.     HDFC Life insurance Company Limited, Narayan Plaza, SCO 778-779, 1^st floor, Kunjpura Road, opp. Mahavir Dal Hospital, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Piyush Batra, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri A.K. Vohra, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte.

                    Shri Vikas Bakshi, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the husband of complainant namely Som Pal Rana had purchased one vehicle JS 120 with .65 cum Bucket (JCB), vide chasis no.1777503 and Engine no.H00006342 from one Mr. Bijender Singh son of Kanwal Singh, resident of village and PO Goyla-Kalan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (previous owner of the same, vide invoice no.D/066 dated 16.01.2012) in the year 2017. As per Government policy, the abovesaid vehicle cannot register with any authority. In the year 2017 after fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the OP no.1, the husband of complainant transferred the insurance policy of said vehicle in his name and same policy was renewed with effect from 12.12.2018 to 12.12.2019 vide certificate and contract no.151761822150312291/ 151731824210003846 and 148239 respectively and obtained the loan in his name from OP no.2 in the year 2017 for tenure of 36 months, vide contract no.148239 which commenced from 15.12.2017 to 15.12.2020 and the husband of complainant paying his installments regularly to the OP no.2 till his death and also got term life insurance from OP no.3, vide loan account no.148239 and certificate no.PP000141AA87900 commenced from 15.12.2017 to 15.12.2020, which was based sum assured of Rs.10,17,687/-. The said loan insurance policy and life insurance policy are co-related with each other, as said Som Pal obtained the insurance policy from OP no.3 on the said vehicle. As per policy issued by OP no.3, OP no.3 is bound to pay the balance requisite installments of said loan of the said vehicle to OP no.2 after the death of person insured. It is further averred that OP no.3 also bound to pay the remaining amount of claim as well as other benefits as per said policy after adjusting the pending loan amount to the complainant.  Complainant is the nominee in the policy issued by OP no.3. Said Som Pal has committed suicide on 22.05.2019 and an FIR was lodged on 23.05.2019 bearing FIR no.164/2019 registered with Police Station Nissing under section 306/34 IPC and post mortem on his dead body was conducted by concerned Doctors of Civil Hospital, Karnal, PMR dated 23.05.2019. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.3 and filed the claim form as per said policy being the nominee of deceased Som Pal and she submitted all the requisite documents with the OP no.3 as demanded by the officials of the OP no.3 and the OP no.3 assured to the complainant that OP no.3 would settle the claim so filed by the complainant as per said insurance policy very shortly. It is further averred that a week ago, the official of the OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant and demanded to deposit the requisite installment of loan so raised by said Som Pal, then the complainant requested them that she is facing great financial crises after the death of her husband and also requested to deposit the balance requisite installments with the OP no.2 after finalizing/settlement the claim so filed by her with the OP no.3 as per said policy but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, rather they threatened to re-sale the said vehicle after getting the possession of the said vehicle from the complainant forcibly and illegally very shortly. Complainant also visited the office of OPno.3 to settle her claim as per said policy due to death of her husband but officials of OP no.3 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that husband of complainant namely Som Pal had purchased Reliance General Insurance under the subject of Contractors Plan and Machinery Policy meaning thereby to cover loss or damage to property located at or adjacent to the site or belonging to or held in care custody etc. conditions and warranties contained in the schedule only. The claim of the complainant does not fall under the provisions of the Contractors plan and Machinery, so the complaint should be dismissed with special costs against the OP no.1 or the name of the OP no.1 should be deleted from the array of the complaint. Complaint is denied for knowledge regarding purchase of vehicle JS 120 with .65 cum Bucket (JCB) from one Mr. Bijender Singh, in the year 2017, as alleged. It is admitted that in the year 2017 after fulfilling all the terms and conditions of OP no.1, the husband of complainant transferred policy of said vehicle in his name and the said policy is meant for that the OP no.1 insures against loss or damage to property located at or adjacent to the site and belongings to or custody, control of the principal or the contractor if occurring directly due to damage of items mentioned in the schedule, so no loss has been caused to the said JCB on the road or site. It is denied for want of knowledge that the husband of complainant obtained loan in his name from OP no.2 in the year 2017, vide loan account no.148239. It is also denied that husband of complainant got term life insurance from OP no.3 on the said loan. It is also denied that the said loan, insurance policy and life insurance policy are co-related with each other. It is further pleaded that as no intimation was given to OP no.1 regarding committing suicide of said Som Pal on 22.05.2019 and a FIR was lodged on 23.05.2019 bearing no.164/2019. It is also denied that after the death of her husband complainant has lodged the claim against the OP no.3. It is further pleaded that the dispute is among the complainant, OP no.2 and OP no.3 only as admitted by the complainant and the OP no.1 has no relation in the claim of the complainant, so the name of the OP no.1 should be deleted from the array of the complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 28.09.2022 of the Commission.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability and cause of action. It is further pleaded that husband of complainant was insured by the OP no.2 with OP no.3 under Group Insurance Policy purchased by the OP no.2. No death claim was lodged by the OP no.2 with the OP no.3 or by the complainant, as such there arises no question of either allowing the claim or to repudiate the claim, therefore, the complaint being premature is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C1, copy of insurance of Reliance General Ex.C2, copy of statement of SREI Ex.C3, copy of insurance of HDFC Life Ex.C4, copy of FIR Ex.C5, copy of PMR Ex.C6, copy of death certificate Ex.C7, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 01.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP  no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur Ex.OP1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.O1, copy of FIR Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 02.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmeet Singh Manager Ex.OPW1/A, authority letter Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 02.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the husband of complainant had obtained a loan for purchasing the JCB from OP no.2 in the year 2017.  The husband of complainant was paying the installments of loan regularly to the OP no.2 till his death. The husband of complainant had also got term life insurance from OP no.3, commenced from 15.12.2017 to 15.12.2020, for the basic sum assured of Rs.10,17,687/-.  As per said policy, OP no.3 is bound to pay the balance requisite installments of said loan of the said vehicle to OP no.2 after the death of person insured. The husband of complainant has committed suicide on 22.05.2019.  After the death of her husband, complainant being nominee lodged the claim with the OP no.3 and submitted all the requisite documents but OP no.3 did not settle the claim till date. OP no.2 also threatened the complainant to re-sale of the said vehicle after getting the possession of the said vehicle from the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no. has no knowledge that the husband of complainant got term life insurance from OP no.3 on the said loan.  He further argued that no intimation was given to OP no.1 regarding committing suicide of said Som Pal on 22.05.2019. After the death of her husband, the dispute is among the complainant, OP no.2 and OP no.3 only, the OP no.1 has no relation in the claim of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

12.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that husband of complainant was insured by the OP no.2 with OP no.3 under Group Insurance Policy purchased by the OP no.2. No death claim was lodged by the OP no.2 with the OP no.3 or by the complainant, as such there arises no question of either allowing the claim or to repudiate the claim, the complaint being premature is liable to be dismissed and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

14.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

15.           Admittedly, the husband of complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question and the same was insured with the OP no.1. It is also admitted that the deceased life assured had got financed the said vehicle from OP no.2. It is also admitted that husband of complainant got term life insurance from OP no.3 on the said loan. It is also admitted that the husband of complainant committed suicide.

16.           Before going to the merits of the complaint, firstly we decide, whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

17.           As per version of the OP no.3, no death claim was lodged by the OP no.2 with the OP no.3 or by the complainant and without submission of the claim, it cannot be decided whether same is payable or not. As per the version of the complainant, she has submitted the claim alongwith required documents with the OPs. The onus to prove her version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. If the complainant had submitted the claim with the OPs and supplied the required documents on file. she would have placed the copies of the said documents. Complainant has also failed to disclose date and month on which submission of the claim form was made with the OPs. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OPs.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that if the Commission came to the conclusion that complainant has not submitted the claim, then complainant is ready to submit the claim to the OPs. Hence, in view of the above, at this stage, the present complaint is premature.

18.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed off with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim alongwith documents as required by the OPs and after submitting the same, OPs are hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days on receipt of the claim form alongwith required documents. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.06.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member