Punjab

StateCommission

FA/46/2014

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satnam Singh and another - Opp.Party(s)

Devi Sant Singh

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No. 46 of 2014                                                     

                                                           Date of institution  :    14.01.2014   

                                               Date of decision     :    25.03.2015

 

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dhuri Road, Sangrur, through United India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.123-124 Sector-17 B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…….Appellant/Opposite party No.2

Versus

Satnam Singh s/o Sh. Gurdev Singh R/o Village Nihaluwal Tehsil and District Barnala.

                                                           .….Complainant/Respondent

The Co-operative Agriculture Society Ltd., Nihaluwal, Tehsil and District Barnala, through its President/Secretary.

                                                …Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

First Appeal against the order dated 03.12.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, Punjab.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                        Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant       : Sh. D. Sant Singh, Advocate

          For respondent no.1 : None.

          For respondent no.2 : Service dispensed with

 

 

SMT. SURINDER PAL KAUR,  MEMBER :-

 

          This appeal has been preferred by opposite party No. 2 against the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and OP No.2 was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the legal heirs of late Sh. Nachhattar Singh, as per document Ex.C-9 (the registered will), in equal shares alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of late                 Sh. Nachhattar Singh i.e. 20.9.2011, till its realization and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and  physical harassment within 30 days from the date of the order.

2. The brief facts, stated in the complaint, are that the  complainant is a consumer of OP being the beneficiary, nominee, and one of the legal heirs of the deceased (Nachhattar Singh). The deceased was member of OP No.1 i.e. society and had an account, bearing no.45 with it. OP No.1 had been continuously deducting Rs.45 as  premium from his account, to get him insured with OP No.2. The insurance cover of Rs.50,000/- was also issued by OP No.2. It was in the custody of OP No.1. On 20.09.2012, Nachhattar Singh slipped in  home and his head stuck the wall . He sustained head injury. Immediately he was taken to village RMP doctor  Sukhwinder Singh, who declared him dead. The postmortem on the dead body was not  conducted due to illiteracy. The dead body was cremated without lodging any F.I.R. Intimation of  death was immediately given to OP No.1 and it  was further conveyed to OP No.2. The complainant applied for claim, and submitted all the requisite documents to OP No.1 on 18.10.2011. These documents were forwarded by it to OP No.2 but the claim was not settled. OP No.1 had issued certificate dated 12.10.2011 to him. The complainant personally visited  OP No.2 and enquired about the status of the claim. It told him that the claim had been refused. The refusal letter had been sent to OP No.1. The above said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking the following directions to the opposite parties :

1. to pay the claim of Rs.50,000/-, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, from the death of Nachhattar Singh, till its realization;
2. to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation on account of physical & mental harassment;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation cost.

3.      OP No.1 did not appear before the District Forum in spite of service, as such  proceeded against  ex-parte on 18.10.2012.

4.      Upon notice, the OP No.2 filed the written reply before the District Forum. It took  preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. Particulars of the alleged policy were not disclosed anywhere in the complaint. Complainant mentioned in the complaint that Nachhattar Singh was member of the OP No.1 and he was insured through OP No.1 and the insurance cover note was in the custody of OP No.1. It was his legal duly to obtain the insurance cover note and other insurance particulars from OP No.1. Complainant is not a legal heir of deceased Nachhattar Singh. He had no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessity parties. The legal heirs of Nachhattar Singh (deceased) were not impleaded as parties. It pleaded that Nachhattar Singh's death was not accidental. As per general conditions of Insurance policy the postmortem on the  dead body was mandatory, which was not conducted. Neither the intimation regarding the death was given to it nor claim alongwith necessary documents was submitted by the complainant. In the absence of documents, claim cannot be decided.  There was no deficiency in service on its part. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed by it.

5.      Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint vide aforesaid order.

6.      No one appeared on behalf of the complainant.  We have heard learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also gone through the records of the District Forum.

7.      It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2  that  the complainant was not a legal heir of the deceased (Nachhattar Singh). No particulars of Insurance Policy had been disclosed in the entire complaint, which was mandatory for filing the complaint. He further submitted that death of the  insured was not  accidental. Neither the postmortem was got conducted  nor FIR was lodged regarding the death of the insured. As per general conditions of the Insurance Policy the postmortem of the deceased was mandatory. The District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint of Satnam Singh, on the ground that he is entitled to the Insurance amount on the basis of the will Ex-C9, executed in his favour by Nachhattar Singh, deceased/insured. As per this will, the insurance amount under the policy was never bequeathed in his favour.

8.      The complainant proved his affidavit Ex.CW1. He deposed that on 20.09.2011, Nachhattar Singh slipped in home and his head stuck against the wall.  He sustained head injury and immediately, he was taken to the village RMP doctor Sukhwinder Singh, who declared him dead. Complainant proved on record affidavit of Dr. Sukhwinder Singh as Ex.CW3 in which he deposed that Nachhattar Singh was injured on  20.09.2011,  in his home and he was brought to him and after check up, he declared him dead. He further deposed that Nachhattar Singh died due to head injury. Thus, the factum of death of Nachhattar Singh by accident is duly proved from statement of  Sukhwinder Singh. Merely on account of non-lodging of the FIR or non-conducting of the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, it cannot be concluded that his death was not as a result of accident. In 2005(1) CPC 533 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Smt. Nidhi Sahi) the case of the complainant was that the death of the insured occurred in the scooter accident and her claim was mainly challenged on the ground that no FIR was lodged nor any Post Mortem Examination had been performed on the body of the deceased. However, the factum of death was duly proved and was supported by statement of witness, who was pillion rider of the scooter at the time of accident. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. In the appeal the same was upheld on the ground that the factum of death had been duly proved. It becomes very much clear from that judgment that even in the absence of the FIR or the Post Mortem Report, the factum of death in a particular way can be proved by producing other evidence.

9.      Complainant contended that being the beneficiary, nominee and one of the legal heir of the deceased, he was entitled for insurance amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-. Deceased was the member of Co-operative Agricultural Society. Complainant proved on record insurance cover note as Ex.C7, it showed that insured was the Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank. Opposite party No.2 annexed the Insurance Policy terms and condition with the grounds of appeal. It was Accident Insurance to Kissan Credit Card holders (Janatha Personal Accidental Policy). Under Clause (1) it was specifically mentioned that an Death of the Insured (KCC holders) the capital sum insured of Rs.50,000/-, was payable under this clause.  The complainant proved on record photocopy of Kissan Credit Card of Nachhattar Singh as Ex.C1, which was issued by Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Being a Kissan Credit Card holder, deceased was covered under the policy. Complainant also proved on record  a letter dated 17-12-2011 Ex-C8  vide which the death claim of the insured was forwarded by Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. to Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. (OP No.2). From the above said document it is proved that the claim of the complainant was sent  by OP No.1 to the OP No.2.

10.    Complainant proved on record affidavit of Nahar  Singh as Ex.CW2, who was the attesting witness of registered will Ex.C9. He deposed that complainant is the Nephew of the deceased Nachhattar Singh, and he treated the complainant  as his real son. Nachhattar Singh had executed a registered will, with his own sweet will, without any pressure. Nachhattar Singh bequeathed his moveable and immoveable property in favour of the  complainant and his brother Beant Singh. The will was scribed in his and Avtar Singh’s presence by the deed writer Baldev Singh Chahal, as per the direction of Nachhattar singh. It was duly signed by Nachhattar Singh in their presence. He also signed the will along with other marginal witness.  

11.    As per the provision of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925,  a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.

12.    In the present case also the will was duly proved by one attesting witness i.e. Nahar Singh. As per said will the deceased Nachhattar Singh bequeathed his moveable and immoveable property in favour of Satnam Singh and his brother Beant Singh. Thus, the District Forum rightly held that the legal heirs of Nachhattar Singh are entitled for insured amount i.e. Rs.50,000/-, in equal shares.

13.    From the above said discussion  the appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.2 is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. The complaint of the complainant is allowed.

14.    The sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the appellant/opposite party No.2 on 14.01.2014 at the time of filing of the appeal. It further deposited the sum of Rs.10,326/-, on 03.02.2014 in compliance of the order dated 24.01.2014. Both these amounts with interest, which has been occurred thereon, if any shall be remitted to the complainant by the registry by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copies of the order to the parties.

15.    The arguments in this case were heard on 02.03.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

 

 

                                                              (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)                                                          

                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                                                                                        

 

                                                               (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

March    25,2015                                                     MEMBER

RK2