District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

CC No                  : 59 of 2014

Dt. of Institution    : 02-09-2014

Dt. of Decision      : 22.7.2015

Kartar Kaur Widow of Late Sh.Makhan Lal son of Sh.Amir Chand, resident of 48, Golden Avenue, Amritsar.

                                                                   …Complainant

Versus

1. Sahara India Parivar, Sahara India Bhawan, 1- Kapurthala  Complex, Lucknow.
2. Sahara India Parivar, 40-Babbar Akali Market, Central Town, Phagwara.
3. Sahara India Parivar, Near SBI Main Branch, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
4. National Insurance Company Limited, IV-43, Jiwan Bhawan Phase-1, 3^rd Floor, Hazrarganj, Luchknow-226001 through its Claim Manager.
5. National Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran, Tehsil: Tarn Taran, District Tran Taran.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12  Consumer Protection Act.

For the Complainant                                     : Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3             : Sh. B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5        : Ms.Neena Kapur, Advocate

Quorum:               Sh. JS. Khushdil, President.

Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.

Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member

Order dictated by Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member

1. Smt.Kartar Kaur, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Sahara India Parivar, Sahara India Bhawan, 1- Kapurthala  Complex, Lucknow (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Parties No.1 to 3” and National Insurance Company Limited, IV-43, Jiwan Bhawan Phase-1, 3^rd Floor, Hazrarganj, Luchknow-226001 through its Claim Manager and another (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Parties No.4 and 5’).
2. The facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.2 approached husband of the complainant and allured him to open the account under different saving schemes for supplementing income for the purpose of oldage. Opposite Party No.2 also apprised husband of the complainant that deposits in the account are safe and all the transactions are transparent and moreover, these account holders are covered under risk of accidental death as per following schedule.

It is further averred that considering the representation of Opposite Party No.1  as true, correct and bonafide, husband of the complainant opened two accounts under ‘Sahara Sawaran Yojna’ (option B) on 16.12.2013 and husband of the complainant was accorded Control No. 26089202082, receipt No. 010068210334, and Control No. 26089202084, receipt No. 010068210336. The deposit in both the accounts as on 28.9.2004 was Rs. 2 lacs i.e. Rs.1 lac  in each account, deposited vide 10 monthly installments.  It was alleged that the policy document was not issued by opposite parties through out the period of insurance. It is further averred that on 28.4.2010, husband of the complainant namely Makhan Lal  was going to his work place from Amritsar to Harike on his car bearing No.PB-2X-0049 and the car struck into ‘safada tree’, which resulted  into accidental death of Makhan Lal on the spot. It was further alleged that the complainant being nominee made representation for reimbursement of monies deposited alongwith insurance benefits incurred thereupon and lodged the claim for Rs.10 lacs i.e. Rs.5 lac in each case with the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents including the death certificate of Makhan Lal, copy of proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C, its translation, original passbook-cum-certificate of both the accounts of the deceased and copy of saving bank account of nominee/ complainant, copy of voter card of complainant. On receipt of the documents, the Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that the entire amount shall be released promptly from Jalandhar by opposite party No.3, but in vain. However, after protracted follow-ups, enquiries and protestations, the Opposite Party No.2 released the monies deposited in both the accounts vide cheque No. 838443 and 838444 for Rs.194149/- each payable at Punjab National Bank, SIS Nagar, Jalandhar, but refused to release the insurance benefits/ compensation. Moreover, opposite party No.4 after the filing of instant complaint repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.11.2012 on the ground that intimation was given after one month. It is further alleged that the cheque of the part payment were released at Jalandhar and were payable at Jalandhar and opposite party No. 3 refused to release the balance payment at Jalandhar, hence cause of action has arisen at Jalandhar also. Therefore the claim was lodged at Jalandhar. But the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar dismissed the petition claim on the ground of want of jurisdiction vide order dated 10.7.2014 and the copy of the order was applied on 10.7.2014 and copy obtained on 1.8.2014. He further alleged that Makhan Lal died at Harike and one of the branch office of opposite party No. 4 is situated at Tarn Taran which has been made party No. 5 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, this Forum has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint. The complainant further alleged that the time spent in prosecuting the petition at Jalandhar be condoned in the interest of justice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs from the opposite parties:-          

1. To pay Rs.10 lacs (Rs.5 lacs in each account) to complainant as sum insured.
2. To grant interest @ 18% per annum on the claim amount of Rs.10 lacs from the date of lodgement of claim upto the date of actual payment to the complainant.
3. To pay compensation/ punitive damages quantified to Rs. 50,000/-
4. Award cost of Rs.20,000/- for proceeding of complaint.

3. Upon notice, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed joint written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, limitation, cause of action, maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it is pleaded that Makhan Lal since deceased deposited Rs.1 lac vide in two accounts No.26089202082 and 26089202084 under Sahara Swarn Yojana on 16.12.2003 at Branch Office, Phagwara. Late Makhan Lal had full notice and knowledge of insurance policy, issued by National Insurance Company Limited, in favour of investors to provide them risk over against accidental death. Copy of the insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions were also given to the investor late Makhan Lal at the time of opening of account and the terms and conditions were fully explained to him and the complainant. Insurance policy was also pasted at Notice Board of Branch Office for due information. Moreover, the facility of accidental death benefit as provided in the scheme form is an additional facility and the opposite party has paid premium to Insurance Company out of their own pocket for providing insurance coverage over the lives of its account holder depositors. In clause 18 it is specifically mentioned that the accidental death claim is subject to the relevant terms and conditions. By nature, the policy is a third party insurance contract and the answering opposite party is not liable. Moreover, the terms and conditions of the policy says that the intimation regarding accidental death must be communicated within a period of 30 days and all related documents within the period of 90 days from the date of death of the account holder. In this case, the complainant for the first time informed the opposite party on 18.5.2012 that Makhan Lal died on 28.4.2010 and the complainant claimed the payment of invested money only. The complainant received the payment on 23.5.2012 in full satisfaction. The complainant never made any claim with regard to the accidental death benefit. It is further averred that the knowledge of the claim came to the opposite party through notice of complainant issued by the District Forum, Jalandhar, therefore the claim was immediately forwarded to the National Insurance Company Limited and the insurance company repudiated the claim being reported very late vide its letter dated 29.11.2012. It is further averred that liability to settle the accidental death insurance claim lies on National Insurance Company Limited who has issued the insurance policy by accepting premium from the opposite party and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party and they denied the other allegations of the complainant and have finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 filed separate written version taking preliminary objections on the ground that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Secondly, the complainant is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present complaint and there is no territorial jurisdiction as the policy in question was taken from Lukhnow and moreover, no cause of action has arisen at Tarn Taran. On merits, it is pleaded that the replying opposite party was only informed regarding the death of Makhan Lal vide letter dated 26.11.2012 which was received on 27.11.2012. Thus, the claim was not entertained by the replying opposite party in view of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also averred that conditions of the policy clearly states that any occurrence under the policy has to be intimated within 30 days of occurrence of incident. This period as a special case can be extended by 15 days, thus claim would have to be reported in writing within 45 days of the occurrence of the incident and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by opposite parties No.4 and 5.  Opposite Parties No.4 and 5-Insurance Company denied the other allegations of the complainant and has finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C26 alongwith Mark A to L and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.P.Singh, Sector Manger Ex.OP1 to 3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to 3/2 to Ex.OP1 to 3/10 and mark A & B and closed the evidence of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Similarly, opposite parties No.4 and 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Divisional Manager Ex.OP4,5/1 and documents Ex.OP4,5/2 to Ex.OP4,5/3 and closed the evidence of opposite parties No.4 and 5.
7. Ex. C1 is the duly sworn affidavit of complainant in which she has stated the version as per claim submitted with the Opposite Parties, Ex. C.2 to C. 21 are receipts, Ex. C.22 is death certificate of Makhan Lal, Ex. C.23 is report, Ex. C.24 is Postmortem report, Ex. C.25 is Rapat No. 6 dated 28.4.2010,  Ex. C.26 is pass book. Ex. OP1 to 3/1 is affidavit of Sh.R.P.Singh, Sector Manger,  Ex. OP 1 to 3/2 and OP 1 to 3/3 are application,  Ex. OP 1 to 3/4  is Policy cover note Ex. OP 1 to 3/5  is 29.11.2012, Ex. OP 1 to 3/6  is  circular dated 20.9.2011, Ex. OP 1 to 3/7  is Voucher dated 12.4.2012, Ex. OP 1 to 3/8  is cheque dated 23.5.2012, Ex. OP 1 to 3/9  is Voucher dated 23.5.2012, Ex. OP 1 to 3/10  is cheque dated 23.5.2012, Ex. OP4 & 5/1 is affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Ex. OP4 & 5/2  is Policy cover Note,  Ex. OP4 & 5/3  is letter dated 29.11.2012.

8        We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant as well as well Opposite Parties and also gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and also perused the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the assistance of ld. counsel for the parties. However, written arguments have not been filed by the opposite parties despite availing sufficient opportunities.

9        Ld. Counsel for the opposite party had contended that the present complaint is not within limitation and is liable to be dismissed as the present complaint is not being filed within the period of limitation. On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has filed the present complaint on 20.11.2012 at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar and the present complaint remained pending there for a long period and then District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar returned back the said complaint for presenting the same to the Forum having territorial jurisdiction. He further contended that the complaint was returned to her vide order dated 10.7.2014. Ld. Counsel for complainant further contended that the period spending in pursing the case spent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar may be deducted.

10      We have considered the contentions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perusal of file shows that the complainant had filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar on 20.11.2012 and the District Forum Jalandhar passed the order  dated 10.7.2014 which is reproduced as :-

In the above circumstances, we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Consequently, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter in dispute. There will be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cots under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.”

Copy of order shows that the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum Jalandhar on 20.11.2012 however the same has been returned to the complainant to present the same having territorial jurisdiction vide order dated 10.7.2014. We are of the considered view that the time spent in pursing the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jalandhar is excluded and the delay in filing the present complaint is condoned.

11      Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. On the other hand, ld counsel for the complainant has contended that accident of the car of the deceased took place at Harike on 20.4.2010 and he died on the spot and village Harike falls under District Tarn Taran therefore this Hon’ble Forum has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

12      We have considered the contentions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of Rapat NO. 6 dated 28.4.2010 Police Station Harike Ex. C.25 in which place of occurrence has been written at near Satluj Palace Harike, District Tarn Taran, therefore part of cause of action arose at Harike and 11(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as:-

          “Cause of action wholly or in part arises”     

In view of the above, we are of the view that accident took place at Harike District Tarn Taran and part cause of action arises at Harike, District Tarn Tran, therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.  

13      It is admitted fact that Makhan Lal (deceased) was depositor of opposite parties No. 1 to 3. However it is also admitted fact that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 will give accidental death benefits to the depositor or his L.Rs/ nominee. As per Ex. OPs 1 to 3/4 it proves that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 got conducted insurance for their depositors from the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 and paid Rs. 3,83,12,500/- to the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 on 9.10.2009. This document further shows that the contract was between Sahara India Parivar i.e. opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and National Insurance Company i.e. opposite parties No. 4 and 5. This insurance was for a period of 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2010 and accident occurred on 20.4.2010 i.e. within the insurance period. It is important to note here that there was no direct contact of the complainant with the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 and it was opposite parties No. 1 to 3 who have contact with opposite parties No. 4 and 5 regarding the policy in question. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have directly deposited the premium with the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 on behalf of their depositors as incentive of the depositor as per their scheme. Moreover it was the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 who had allured husband of the complainant and on the allurement of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 husband of the complainant deposited the amount in the account of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 after admitting the complainant as L.R of deceased Makhan Lal had issued Cheque No. 838444 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 amounting to Rs. 1,94,149/- and  Cheque No. 838443 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/10 amounting to Rs. 1,94,149/- to the complainant. Moreover the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 issued the above said amount i.e. amount of deposit alongwith interest to the complainant after thorough processing. It has not been made clear to the depositor Makhan Lal or her L.R. i.e. complainant that he or she would be entitled to receive the amount of insurance against one deposit only. Admittedly the Makhan Lal deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in each account i.e. in two separate accounts. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 were having due knowledge regarding the death of Makhan Lal and made the payment of deposit alongwith interest to the complainant but the opposite parties have not made the payment of insurance amount to the complainant without any reason and rhyme.  It was the bounded duty of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to make the information to the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 for further process. Ex. OP4, 5/2 further clarify that it was the duty of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to inform the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 within time and claim was to be settled within 135 days from the date of occurrence. But inspite of informing the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 for making the payment of insured amount, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have only issued the cheque qua deposit of amount alongwith interest and there was no fault on the part of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties have not proved on record that they have issued any terms and conditions to the depositor regarding the policy in question. As such it was the duty of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to intimate the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 immediately and there is no fault on the part of the complainant. By not finalizing the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties have committed illegality and it constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

14      No technical defect of repudiation qua consumer could be taken in to consideration. If there is any delay in giving the information that should be treated on the part of opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

15      In view of above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint has merits and the same is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant against two deposits each of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of this order. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily, therefore, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rule. File be consigned to record room                 

Announced in open Forum                                              

Dated: 22.7.2015                                   

(J.S.Khushdil)

                                                      President

                             (Jaswinder Kaur)                   (R.D.Sharma)

                                    Member                                      Member