Reliance General Insurance The Reliance General Insurance The Mansa Central Co-op Bank Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. P.S. Dhanoa 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.98/18.07.2008 Decided on : 20.02.2009 1.Smt.Paramjit Kaur Wd/o Sh.Kishore Chand S/o Sh.Devi Dayal 2.BhupinderPal S/o of Sh.Sh.Kishore Chand S/o Sh.Devi Dayal 3.Pal Kaur D/o Sh.Kishore Chand S/o Sh.Devi Dayal 4.Jaspal S/o Sh.Kishore Chand S/o Sh.Devi Dayal all residents of Ward No.6, Village Bareta, Opposite Railway Station, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance, Branch Office Old Court Road, Opposite Police Station, Sadar, Mansa. 2.The Reliance General Insurance, Regional Office, SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. 3.The Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mansa, Branch Bareta, through its Branch Manager. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the complainants. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 exparte. Sh.H.S.Sadhuwala, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Smt.Paramjit Kaur widow of Sh.,Kishore Chand and their sons ,Bhupinder Pal and Jaspal and daughter Pal Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), against Reliance General Insurance, through its Branch Manager posted at Mansa, Regional Manager,Chandigarh and the Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mansa, through its Branch Manager, branch office Bareta, for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the insurance policy secured, by Sh.Kishore Chand and compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, damages in equal amount and costs, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, from the date of death of life insured, till actual payment. 2. As per averments made in the complaint, Kishore Chand, husband of complainant No.1 and father of the remaining complainants, secured insurance policy bearing No.20-30-11-00003-06 from OP No.1 on his life, for a sum of Rs.1 lac through OP No.3. The life insured expired on 22.3.2007. He was run over by the train as there is no bridge over the railway line which he was crossing at the time of accident. The town of Bareta is divided in two parts situated on either side of the railway line. The railway police, on being informed, registered DDR No.14 dated 22.3.2007 at the Police Post GRP, Bareta and got performed post mortem examination of the deceased on even date. The complainants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to inherit his property and to receive the amount payable under the policy secured by him and they are consumers under the opposite parties, within the ambit of its definition given in the Act. They lodged complaint and delivered requisite documents, to the opposite parties, but they have failed, to make payment of amount payable under the policy. As such, there is deficiency in service on their part, because of which the complainants, have been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, OP No.3 filed the written version resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that the complainants, have no locus standi to file the complaint, because they are not consumers under the answering opposite party; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, as such, they have no liability to make payment of any amount under the policy and to pay compensation to the complainants; that the complaint is barred by limitation and that is bad for mis joinder of the head office of the answering opposite party, as the life insured had entered into agreement with the said office. On merits, it is submitted, that the documents delivered by the complainants, were forwarded to the head office, by the answering opposite party and claim, if any, payable on account of death of the life insured under the policy, is to be paid by the remaining opposite parties. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte after their defence was struck off vide order dated 6.11.2008, after they have failed, to file written version. 5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainants tendered in evidence, affidavit of Jaspal, Exhibit C-1, and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-9 before he closed evidence. On the other hand learned counsel for OP No.3, tendered in evidence Ext. OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them , carefully, with their kind assistance. 7. Sh.Jaspal, Complainant No.4, has furnished his affidavit Ext.C-1, reiterating all the averments made in the complaint almost in their entirety. The complainants, have also tendered in evidence Ext.C-4, copy of DDR No.14 registered on 22.3.2007 at the Police Post GRP, Bareta. They have also tendered copy of post mortem report Ext.C-5. As per the details given therein, deceased Kishore Chand, had expired on 22.3.2007 and he was 50 years old at the time of his death, as a result of accidental injuries caused by a running train in the neck region and on spinal cord. As per copy of Inquest Report Ext.C-8, the dead body of the deceased, was identified by Bhupinder Singh and Jaspal sons of deceased Kishore Chand. The complainants, have also tendered in evidence copy of complaint lodged by the Complainant No.1, Ext.C-2 with the Opposite Parties. They have further produced on record letter of repudiation Ext.C-3 written by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.3 bank to the effect that death of Kishore Chand was caused while he was crossing the railway line under the parked train in violation of the railway rules and complainants have failed to prove the factum of his death in accident. As per the admission made by the Opposite Party No.3, deceased was holding bank account at the time of issuance of policy. As observed earlier, he was 50 years old at the time of his death and as per an entry made in copy of his pass book , Ext.C-10, tendered by way of additional evidence, a sum of more than Rs.1,000/-, was lying balance in the bank account of the deceased, on the date of his death, as required vide insurance policy Ext.C-11 and OP-1. 8. The above said oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the complainants, has gone uncontroverted, as Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not contested the complaint to its logical end. We do not find substance in the plea taken by the Opposite Party No.3 in their written version about the conveyance of intimation about the claim lodged by the complainants to their head office, which is the internal matter of their institution. Moreover, Opposite Party No.3 has no liability to pay any amount to the legal heirs of the deceased insured. 9. The complainants remained successful in proving that death of the insured has taken place in an accident. As such, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot escape liability to pay the amount of insurance to his legal heirs, because deceased life insured had met with an accident while he was crossing the railway line. The accident, has taken place during the validity period of the policy i.e. 1.6.2006 to 31.5.2007 and there is nothing on record to suggest that insurance claim filed by the legal heirs of the deceased could be repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that his death has not taken place in accident. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion, that complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed, but it is accepted against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, who are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac to the complainants in equal shares in terms of the insurance policy issued in the name of the deceased life insured, along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 27.12.2007 till the date of actual payment. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants, on account of costs, to compensate them for the amount spent by them, for filing the Instant complaint. 11. The opposite parties No.1 & 2, are directed, to pay the above said amounts, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.02.2009 Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. President.
