Haryana

Ambala

CC/216/2015

Vidya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.I - Opp.Party(s)

Ranbir Singh

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 216 of 2015.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 10.08.2015.

                                                          Date of decision   : 25.10.2017

 

          Vidya Devi wife of late EASI Hoshiar Singh No.497/Amb, resident of     village Teori, P.O.Rattangarh Tehsil Shahbad District Kurukshetra.

……. Complainant.

 

1. State Bank of India, through its Senior Manager, Main Branch Court Road, Ambala City.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Claims Manager # 301, 3^rd floor, Krishe Block (South Wing), Krishe Sapphire Building Hitech City main road, Madhapur Villae, Serlingampally Mandal, Rangardeey, Hyderabad-500081.

….…. opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Ranbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. U.S.Chauhan, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Op No.2 exparte.

                  

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that husband of the complainant namely Hoshiar Singh was EASI in Haryana Police and was having his salary account No.10487952983 with Op No.1. As per Police Salary Package scheme of government Op No.1 insured the husband of the complainant with Op No.2 vide policy No.1111342914000034. On 20.06.2014 husband of the complainant got entangled with a train and died at the spot and regarding this GRP Ambala also lodged a DDR No.15 of 20.06.2014. Post mortem on the dead body of her husband was also conducted vide PMR No.BK/09/14 dated 20.06.2014 at GH, Ambala City. The complainant intimated the police department and OP No.1 and also completed all the formalities regarding benefits under Police Salary Package. The DCP vide letter No.22877 of 28.07.2014 had sent relevant documents and vide letters 20285 of 20.05.2015 and No.29/288 of 22.12.2014 requested to release the necessary benefits under the said scheme but vide letter dated 11.05.2015 OP No.2 intimated the complainant about repudiation of the claim being delayed intimation of 318 days on 04.05.2015 to it by OP No.1 and as per terms and conditions the claim intimation was to be received within 90 days. The OP No.1 intimated the complainant that the claim was submitted with Op No.2 within time. The complainant requested the Ops many a times to settle the claim but to avail.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

2.                Upon notice, Op No.1 appeared and filed its written statement wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction, locus sandi and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer etc.  It has been submitted that the complainant had informed the OP No.1 about the death of Hoshiyar Singh on 12.01.2015 by way of written request which was forwarded to the higher authorities. The complainant had approached the Op No.1 after more than 7 months from the date of accident despite the fact that the policy claim was to be lodged within 90 days from the date of incident. Thereafter as per policy conditions subsequent correspondence was to take place between the complainant and Op No.2 without involvement of the bank.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.0.2015.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C20.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

 4.               We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                Undisputedly, the husband of the complainant namely Hoshiar Singh was EASI in Haryana Police and was having his salary account No.10487952983 with Op No.1. The husband of the complainant namely EASI Hoshiar Singh was insured with the OP No.2 as per Police Salary Package scheme floated by the government which was duly tied up with the OP No.1/bank, being a beneficiary, as the official concerned was having salary account with the Op No.1/bank, therefore, the plea of the Op No.1 that the life assured was not the consumer of the OP No.1 is not tenable and the present complaint is not barred as per provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.  The husband of the complainant was insured with Op No.2 vide policy No.1111342914000034 as mentioned in repudiation letter dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure C13). On 20.06.2014 the life assured got entangled with a train and died at the spot and regarding this GRP Ambala also lodged a DDR No.15 of 20.06.2014 (Annexure C5). Post mortem on the dead body of deceased was also conducted vide PMR No.BK/09/14 dated 20.06.2014 at GH, Ambala City (Annexure C6).

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant intimated the police department and thereafter concerned department had forwarded the matter in question to OP No.1/bank alongwith the application of the applicant as well as the documents regarding benefits under Police Salary Package and the DCP vide letters No.22877 of 28.07.2014 (Annexure C15) had sent relevant documents and vide letters 20284 of 20.05.2015 and No.29/288 of 22.12.2014 requested to release the necessary benefits under the said scheme but vide letter dated 11.05.2015 OP No.2 intimated the complainant about repudiation of the claim being delayed intimation of 318 days on 04.05.2015 and as per terms and conditions the claim intimation was to be received within 90 days.

7.                          Per contra, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the complainant had informed the OP No.1 about the death of Hoshiyar Singh on 12.01.2015 by way of written request which was forwarded to the higher authorities after more than 7 months from the date of accident despite the fact that the policy claim was to be lodged within 90 days by the complainant from the date of incident. Thereafter as per policy conditions subsequent correspondence had place between the complainant and Op No.2 without involvement of the bank, therefore, the OP No.1 is not at fault.

8.                Though Sh.M.Bindal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Op No.2 and also moved an application for setting aside the exparte order date 31.09.2015 but this application is not maintainable as this Forum has no powers to review its own order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, this application is also dismissed.   

9.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP No.1 this Forum it is crystal clear that vide Annexure C15 i.e. letter No.22876 dated 28.07.2014 and the above said letter was dispatched to the OP No.1 by the DCP Urban, Ambala on dated 31.07.2014 and the same was received by Sr.Manager, SBI, Ambala City (Annexure C20 copy of dispatch register). On Annexure C15 and Annexure C20 the dispatch number is the same and these documents are very well read in evidence, therefore, the contention of OP No.1 about not receiving Annexure C20 is not tenable and is set at rest being not manipulated documents. Vide Annexure C17 i.e. letter dated 28.01.2015 it has been brought into the notice of OP No.1 with request to release the claim qua the death of EASI Hoshiar Singh under Police Salary Package.  It is pertinent to mention here that the Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant had informed about the death of EASI Hoshiar Singh only on 12.01.2015 i.e. after the death of seven months despite the fact that the claim was to be lodged within 90 days of the incident but on the other hand the Op No.1 had written a letter dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure C19) to DCP, Ambala City whereby some documents such as The request letter from the claimant, Death Certificate, Copy of the FIR and Post Mortem Report  of deceased to process the claim which shows that the bank/OP No.1 has taken contradictory stand in the reply that the intimation qua the death of E/ASI Hoshiar Singh was received on 12.01.2015. In the present case EASI Hoshiar Singh had died on 20.06.2014 and the DCP, Ambala City had requested the Op No.1 qua releasing the benefit under Police Salary Package to the complainant on account of death of her husband namely EASI Hoshiar Singh on 28.07.2014 (Annexure C10), therefore, the plea of late intimation to the OP No.1 is not sustainable because complainant has applied with the concerned department within time and same has been forwarded to the OP No.1 without any delay which was received by OP No.1 as per the entry made in the dispatch register of the police department Annexure C20 dated 31.07.2014. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that the claim has been lodged after 90 days even then it does not affect the merits of the case and also does not fatal to the case of the complainant despite the fact that the death of EASI Hoshiar Singh died in an accident which is duly proved from the documents DDR and PMR (Annexure C5 and Annexure C6 respectively) and the insurance was for Personal Accident Insurance Death Cover and case of the complainant covered under the above said scheme. Now, the Op No.1 cannot take the shelter that it is only a facilitator because the act and conduct of the OP No.1 appears to avoid the claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other and being a financial institution the way of treating the matter in question is very casual manner by the OP No.1 is not acceptable. In the present case the Op No.2 is exparte and did not bother to contest the complaint and this Forum has also taken this fact in mind that the policy Annexure R2 was issued by OP No.2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Op No.2 was doing the business through Op No.1 and both the OPs are beneficiary and now they cannot escape from the liability qua the claim lodged by the complainant after the death of EASI Hoshiar Singh/life assured, therefore, both the OPs are liable to indemnify the claim lodged qua death of EASI Hoshiyar Singh. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled for the benefit of Police Salary Package. Hence, the present complaint is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- besides paying the benefits under Police Salary Package to the complainant to be paid by the Ops jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.3 lac (Rs.Three Lac) as mentioned in Annexure C9 being fallen under the category of Gold as per scheme being designated as E/ASI alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 25.10.2017                                                                                                                                             

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)       (D.N.ARORA)

                 Member                                   Member                           President                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.