Punjab

Sangrur

CC/27/2015

Jaswinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangrur Central Co-op. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Ratol

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    27

                                                Instituted on:      14.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.08.2015

 

 

Jaswinder Kaur aged about 56 years wife of Late Shri Krishan Chand alias Krishan Kumar, resident of Nihal Patti, Village Jhaneri, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sangrur through its District Manager.

2.             The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Gharachon, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Pearl Plaza, K-24, Plot No.ABCD & E, 2^nd Floor, Sector 18, Noida 201 301 through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Gagandeep Singh, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the husband of the complainant namely Shri Krishan Chand alias Krishan Kumar  availed the services of the OPs number 1 and 2 by opening a saving bank account number 831 and under the said account, the husband of the complainant was insured under Cooperative Bank Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant is the nominee under the said bank account, as such the complainant being the nominee and beneficiary is said to be consumer of the OPs.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately on 28.5.2013, the husband of the complainant met with road side accident and succumbed to the injuries on 11.6.2013. It is further stated that the DDR number 18 dated 30.5.2013 was also lodged at PS Mehla and the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Rajindra Hospital Patiala.  It is further stated that after the death of the insured, the complainant being the nominee and beneficiary gave intimation to the OPs number 1 and 2 for releasing the claim amount, who forwarded the documents to OP number 3 for release of the claim amount.  It is further averred that the complainant alongwith her son approached the Ops so many times, but of no avail.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured, Shri Krishan Chand i.e. 11.6.2013 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that husband of the complainant was insured with the OP number 3 through OPs number 1 and 2.  It is further admitted that the complainant lodged the claim and the OPs number 1 and 2 forwarded the claim papers to OP number 3 for release of the claim amount.  Thereafter the OP number 3 issued a letter to the OPs number 1 and 2 and demanded certain documents and the complainant was intimated accordingly for sending the same to OP number 3 for release of the claim amount.  As such, it is stated that the claim amount is payable by OP number 3 only and the Ops number 1 and 2 are not liable at all.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature.  It is further stated that the complainant has failed to submit proof regarding the payment of premium under the saving bank account of the deceased Krishan Chand and the claim is still pending.  It is stated further that the OP number 3 has already paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of death of Shri Krishan Chand in KCC account bearing number 220. It is stated further that the contract of the insurance between the OP and the complainant is governed by the policy terms and conditions.  The maintainability of the claim is also disputed. On merits, it is denied that the complainant is the wife and nominee of deceased Krishan Chand. It is stated that the said policy was issued to OP number 1 under Sehkari Bank Bima Yojna subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the complainant and his son Kuljinder Singh lodged two separate claims with the Op on account of death of Shri Krishan Chand. It is further averred that the complainant lodged the present claim for Rs.1,00,000/- under saving bank account number 831, whereas her son namely Kuljinder Singh lodged the claim under KCC account for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The claim was investigated and thereafter he was asked to submit the proof regarding the deduction of premium from the saving bank account number 831 of Shri Krishan Chand, but the complainant failed to do so.  It is stated that the Op is still ready to pay the claim, if the complainant submits the proof regarding deduction of the premium from his saving bank account.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of DDR, Ex.C-2 copy of PMR, Ex.C-3 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-4 copy of member report, Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of account book and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of application, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of letter dated 2.9.2013, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of letter dated 5.9.2013 regarding death claim,  Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of insurance policy of Liberty Videocon, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of letter dated 20.9.2013, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of letter dated 15.11.2013, Ex.Op1&2/9 copy of letter dated 29.10.2013, Ex.OP1&2/10 copy of letter dated 17.12.2013, Ex.OP1&2/11 copy of letter dated 8.1.2014 and Ex.OP1&2/12 copy of letter dated 11.2.2014 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit, Ex.Op3/2 copy of policy, Ex.OP3/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             In the present case, the husband of the complainant had purchased the personal accident policy for Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs and after the accidental death of her husband, the complainant became the consumer of the OPs being the nominee in the said policy.

8.             OPs number 1 and 2 have admitted having issued the said policy and with regard to the other contents, the learned counsel has submitted that the same is the matter of record.  OPs number 1 and 2 have further submitted that the claim of the complainant was forwarded to the insurance company immediately and there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP number 3 has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 17.12.2013 on the grounds that the complainant has not submitted i) succession certificate/legal heir certificate, ii) indemnity bond and iii) NEFT mandate form filled by beneficiary/legal heirs in whose  name the payment is to be done.

 

9.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the ascertaining of legal heirs and for this the OP number 3 has demanded the succession certificate/ legal heir certificate from the complainant, whereas the indemnity bond cannot be pressed when the claim has to be paid to the legal heirs and instead of NEFT mandate, the OP number 3 could have made the payment by way of cheque to the complainant.

 

10.            Now the complainant as well as OP number 1 and 2 have been admitting that the complainant is the nominee in the present policy and even then the OP number 3 has been pressing for legal heir certificate. It seems that the OP number 3 instead of relying upon the record of OP number 1 and 2 has been unilaterally raising the objection.  As such, we are of the opinion that a nominee if he/she may not be a legal heir of the policy holder even then also, the nominee can claim the amount of insurance after the death of the policy holder.  Due to this reason, the name of the nominee is obtained while issuing the insurance policy.  But, in the present case, the nominee is the legal heir of the policy holder as she has lodged the claim being the wife of the policy holder, so in such a case, we do not find any cogent reason for the OP number 3 in repudiating the claim.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission delivered in First Appeal No.1364 of 2008 titled as Balwinder Kaur vs. Kribhco and others, in which the Hon’ble Commission has held that the complainant is the wife of the deceased and she has not produced any evidence for proving that she is the only legal heir of the deceased. However, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that other legal heirs have not been impleaded as parties.  Where there are more than one consumer, any one or two of them can file a complaint for the benefit of all the consumers. The Hon’ble Commission further allowed the complaint in this case.                                

 

11.            In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.1.2015 till realisation.  OP number 3 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

12.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member