DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 1.3.2017

                                      Decided on:   1.1.2021

1. Charanjit Kaur aged about 49 years widow of Late Narinder Singh Banga
2. Rama Singh aged about 25 years daughter of Late Narinder Singh Banga
3. Gaganpreet Singh aged about 23 years son of Late Narinder Singh Banga

All residents of House No.365 –D, Azad Nagar Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., Chhoti Baradari Branch, Patiala through its Branch Manager, Plot No.7,Alahabad Bank, Ist Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Chandigarh Office, SCO No.101-103,Second Floor, Batra Building Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
3. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall Branch, Patiala through its Chief Manager.
4. State Bank of Patiala, Chanarthal Kalan, Branch, now in District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Branch Manager.
5. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall Branch, Patiala through its Industrial Relations Department, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                             Sh.S.S.Sahni, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Puneet Gupta, counsel for OPs No.1&2

                             Sh.Anand Puri, counsel for OPs No.3to5.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Charanjit Kaur and others (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that Late Narinder Singh Banga, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2&3 was working as Assistant Manager in State Bank of Patiala and was posted at Chanarthal Kalan Branch, Patiala (now falls at Fatehgarh Sahib). It is averred that on 29.7.2008, he left the premises of the said branch without any known destiny and without disclosing anything and remained untraceable since then. The complainant No.1 made complaint to police station Mullepur District Fatehgarh Sahib. Fact of his missing was also reported in daily newspapers but he was not traced.
3. It is averred that complainants No.1to3 filed a civil suit No.83 of 20.8.2015 for declaration to the effect that Narinder Singh Banga son of Kartar Singh be presumed to be dead as he has not been heard and seen for more than 7 years and accordingly Ld.Addl.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala passed judgment and decree dated 25.2.2016 that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga has not been seen and unheard since 29.7.2008 and has been presumed dead since then. The complainants were declared to be entitled to all death benefits of Sh.Narinder Singh Banga. Thereafter death certificate was issued by Registrar Birth and Death, Fatehgarh Sahib, stating 29.7.2008 as date of death on the basis of said judgment and decree dated 25.2.2016.
4. It is further averred that Late Narinder Singh Banga was employee of OPs No.3to5 and had got a group insurance scheme for SBOP staff i.e. Samuran Suraksha Policy No.82001009105 from OPs No.1&2 for an amount of Rs.15lacs and it was the mandatory responsibility of OPs No.3to5 to keep the said policy update/active.
5. It is further averred that after passing of judgment and decree dated 25.2.2016, the complainants approached the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.15lac but they did not pay the said amount and OPs No.1&2 rejected the claim on the flimsy ground that as per court order dated 25.2.2016 Sh.Narinder Singh Banga was presumed dead and  on 25.2.2016 the master policy was on lapsed status.’
6. It is averred that as date of death of Narinder Singh Banga is 29.7.2008 and at that time the policy was not in the lapsed status. It is further averred that  the bank authorities have given the payment to the family of one of their employee, treating the date  of his missing, as date of death.
7. It is further averred that the complainants repeatedly approached the OPs and also placed request under Claims Review Committee but it vide letter dated 28.10.2016 also uphold the decision that policy was in lapsed mode on 25.2.2016  and rejected the claim of the complainants on false, illegal and arbitrary grounds. It is further averred that the complainants also got issued legal notice dated 12.12.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants.
8. On this back ground of the facts, the complainants  have filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to pay the policy amount of Rs.15 lac alongwith interest @18% per annum ; damages of Rs.one lac and costs of Rs.25000/-.
9. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written replies.
10. In written reply filed by OPs No.1&2, they raised preliminary objections that the complainants have filed the complaint alleging non settlement of death claim on the life of Narinder Singh Banga and claiming that he has been missing since 29.7.2008 and remained untraceable since then. The date of death is also claimed as 29.7.2008 as he is presumed dead having not been heard since then.
11. It is submitted that date of death as alleged by the complainants is not correct as the DLA was reported to have been missing since 29.7.2008. The complainants filed a civil suit on 20.8.2015 for declaration to presume Sh.Narinder Singh Banga as dead as he was missing and was not heard for more than seven years. The said suit was disposed off by the Hon’ble Civil Court Patiala on 25.2.2016 with the declaration that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga is presumed to be dead being missing and not heard for more than seven years and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sh.Narinder Singh Banga.
12. It is pleaded that declaration about the DLA as dead by the Hon’ble Civil Court is only on presumption that the person concerned is dead who had never been heard in past seven years. It is submitted that presumption of law is called presumption of judicial death .It is submitted that Judicial death is a term used by the framers of Indian Evidence Act for deciding the case in the absence of any fact regarding death of the person concerned.
13. It is further pleaded that before the date of order i.e. 25.2.2016, the DLA was missing and was not presumed dead. Therefore, any date before the completion of seven years from the date of missing cannot be considered as the date of death.Thus the death certificate produced by the complainants showing the date of death as 29.7.2008 is wrong because the death certificate is dated 12.5.2016.
14. It is admitted that DLA was insured under Sampoorn Suraksha Scheme under master policy No.82001009105 issued to State Bank of Patiala having annual date of renewal as 29^th October of every year. The master policy lapsed on 28.10.2014 and was not renewed further. Thus the master policy was not in force as on the date of presumption of death of Sh.Narinder Singh Banga i.e. 25.2.2016.Hence the claim was repudiated.
15. On merits it is submitted that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga was employed with State Bank of Patiala.The DLA was covered for Basic sum assured of Rs.8lacs under Sampoorna Suraksha scheme under Master policy No.82001009105 issued to State Bank of Patiala. It is further submitted that OPs received death claim intimation through the Master policy holder for the sum assured of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith the copy of the order dated 25.2.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court,Patiala declaring that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga is presumed to be dead being missing and had not been heard for more than seven years and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sh.Narinder Singh Banga.
16. Further the OPs reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections and have stated that the OPs have acted as per the terms and conditions of the Master Policy and the prevailing law and the repudiation of the claim is just and legal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and after denying all other averments made in the complaint have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
17. In the written reply filed by OPs No.3to5 they have also raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as intricate questions of law and facts are involved ; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainants  have no cause of action to file the presence complaint; that the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the actual and material facts; that the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OPs; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.
18. On merits, it is admitted that late Sh.Narinder Singh Banga was working as Asstt.Manager. It is further submitted that the OPs No.3to5 were not the party in the suit filed by the complainants so they have no knowledge about the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2016.
19. It is submitted that when the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2&3 namely Narinder Singh Banga absented from the bank on 29.7.2008, the bank after completing legal formalities, struck off the name of the said Narinder Singh Banga from the Bank’s Rolls vide letter dated 19.10.2009.Thus, question to keep the said insurance policy updated/active was not arisen. The OPs gave all the payments admissible under rules to the complainants.
20. It is further submitted that on 29.7.2008, when Narinder Singh Banga, left the bank, he was fully insured with the OPs No.1&2.The Bank’s employees remained insured from 19.10.2014 till 25.2.2016 with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance company and the complainants have not made the said company as. The OPs after denying all other averments made in the complaint have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
21. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA of Charanjit Kaur, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
22. The ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 tendered affidavit  Ex.OPA of Neelam Singh, Asstt. Manager Legal alongwith documents Exs.OP3 to OP8 and closed the evidence.
23. The ld. counsel for OPs No.3to5 tendered affidavit Ex.OPB of Shrichand Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
24. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
25. The ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga, deceased was working as Asstt. Manager in State Bank of Patiala at Chanarthal Kalan Branch.The ld. counsel further argued that on 29.7.2008, he left premises of the said branch without any known destiny and without disclosing anything and he never came back after 29.7.2008. The ld. counsel further argued that complainant No.1 made complaint to police station Mullepur District Fatehgarh Sahib and fact of his missing was also reported in daily Newspapers. The ld. counsel further argued that then the complainants filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that Narinder Singh Banga is presumed to be dead. The suit was decreed and judgment of decree was passed on 25.2.2016 and after that death certificate was issued on 29.7.2008. It is further argued that Narinder Singh Banga, husband of complainant no.1 was employee of OPs No.3to5 and they have got Group insurance scheme policy for SBOP staff i.e. Sampuran Suraksha policy bearing No.82001009105 from OPs No.1&2 for the amount of Rs.15lac. It was mandatory responsibility of OPs No.3to5 to keep that policy updated. The ld. counsel further argued that after passing of the judgment on 25.2.2016, the complainant approached the OPs for the payment of the claim but the same was repudiated on flimsy grounds and has prayed that the complaint be allowed.
26. On the other hand the only legal objection raised by OPs No.1&2 is that the complainants are not entitled to any amount  as the policy was closed in the year 2014.The ld. counsel further argued that civil court decree is only a presumption that the person concerned is dead. The ld. counsel further argued that the judgment is not binding upon OPs No.1&2.The ld. counsel further argued that DLA was insured under Sampuran Suraksha scheme issued to SBOP having annual date of renewal as 29^th October of every year and master policy  lapsed on 28.10.2014 and was never renewed. Thus the claim was repudiated.
27. On behalf of OPs No.3to5, the ld. counsel have also argued on the same point as argued by OPs No.1&2 and has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as L.I.C. of India Vs.Anuradha CDJ 2004 SC 542.
28. To prove this case, Charanjit Kaur, wd/o of Narinder Singh Banga, tendered her affidavit,Ex.CA and she  has deposed as per the complaint .She has also tendered copy of plaint of civil suit,Ex.C1, Ex.C2 is the judgment passed by Ld.Addl.Judge Sr.Division , Patiala on 25.2.2016 vide which suit in favour of LRs was declared and in that case it was held by Ld. Civil Judge Sr.Division that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga is missing and has not been heard for the last seven years and the plaintiffs are the  only legal heirs of Narinder Singh Banga and are entitled to all the death benefits of Narinder Singh Banga. So it is clear that the decree was passed in favour of the complainants and it was held that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga is not heard from last seven years.
29. Ex.C4 is the death certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Births and Death, Chanarthal Kalan, in which the date of death is shown as 29.7.2008 and date of registration as 12.5.2016.  Ex.C5 is the document of State Bank of Patiala, in which the claim of one Late Bimal Sharma.Asstt. Manager on his death for Rs.6,50,000/- was granted, who was missing on 7.10.2007 and was declared dead by the civil court on 24.4.2015. Ex.C6 is another order of State Bank of Patiala vide which amount of Rs.12,50,000/- was granted to the employee  on account of natural death and  he was declared dead by the civil court. Ex.C8 is letter written by State Bank of Patiala,Sai Market Branch, Patiala to SBI Life Insurance Company regarding the case of Bimal Sharma who was declared dead by the court.Ex.C9 is rejection of claim of Narinder Singh Banga, on the ground that the policy has already been lapsed.Ex.C10 is a legal notice sent by the complainants to the OPs and Exs.C11 and C12 are postal receipts.
30. On behalf of OPs Shri Chand, Manager SBOP has tendered  his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement and has admitted that Narinder Singh Banga was working as Asstt. Manager on 29.7.2008 and  was not having any knowledge about the passing of judgment of 25.2.2016. Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Neelam Singh and she has deposed as per his written statement. Ex.OP1 is letter of SBOP regarding the dues of Narinder Singh, Ex.OP2 is certificate of full and final amount of ex-gratia of Rs.11,92,725/- of Narinder Singh Banga. It is signed by her wife Charanjit Kaur, Ex.OP3 is rules of master plan policy, Ex.OP4 is the most important letter,it was sent by State Bank of Patiala, Industrial Relations Department, Head Office,The Mall, Patiala to OPs No.1&2. It is mentioned  in this letter that,’ death claim of Rs.8lac regarding Narinder Singh Banga, who was posted at Chanarthal Kalan Branch and was missing since 29.7.2008 be paid and all the relevant papers were attached with this letter.
31. So it is clear that OPs No.3to5 had written to OPs No.1&2 to pay the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- of SBI Sampuran Suraksha Scheme in lieu of claim of Narinder Singh. All the documents were attached with the application but that was rejected vide order,Ex.OP6.Ex.OP7 is reply to legal notice, Ex.OP8 is amendment of Master Policy of State Bank of Patiala.
32. Admittedly Sh.Narinder Singh Banga S/o Kartar Singh was working as Asstt.Manager State Bank of Patiala, Chanarthal Branch. On 29.7.2008 he left the premises of said branch for unknown destiny and was missing since then. Fact of missing was reported in news papers and the matter was also reported to police station Fatehgarh Sahib.After waiting of seven years his LRs filed a suit for declaration and that suit was decreed by the then Civil Judge Sr.Division, Patiala vide its judgment Ex.C2. The ld. court has granted the decree of declaration to the effect that Sh.Narinder Singh Banga is presumed to be dead being missing and has not been heard for more than  seven years and that the complainants are the  only legal heirs and are entitled to all the death benefits of Narinder Singh Banga.
33. As per the pleadings Narinder Singh Banga was insured under Sampuran Suraksha policy bearing No.82001009105 of OPs No.1&2 for Rs.15lac and claim was rejected. In the written reply strangely OPs No.1&2 have tried to find fault in the judgment passed by Ld. Judge Senior Division, Patiala. It is stated in the written reply that death of Narinder Singh was only on presumption that he was never heard for the last seven years. It is mentioned by OPs No.1&2 that the presumption of the law is called presumption of judicial death. So the OPs No.1&2 in the written statement has tried to create their own law and they are trying to defend their case finding fault in the judgment passed in favour of the complainants.
34. However, it is admitted that DLA was insured under Sampuran Suraksha Scheme of State Bank of Patiala. It is stated that master policy was lapsed on 28.10.2014 and was not renewed further so his claim was rejected. This is strange defence put by OPs No.1&2. When Narinder Singh went missing on 29.7.2008 then he was not in a position to renew his policy. As already stated above, the State Bank of Patiala i.e. OPs No.3to5, have written to OPs No.1&2 to send the death claim of Rs.8,00,000/- vide letter,Ex.OP4.
35. So it is clear that OPs No.3to5 had found case of death of Narinder Singh and i.e why they have written to SBI Life Insurance to pay the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and they  have attached all these documents alongwith this letter but that claim was rejected vide order,Ex.OP6.In the rejection letter, it is mentioned that as per Court order dated 25.2.2016 Narinder Kaur was presumed to be dead and as on date of death master policy was in lapsed status, so it was rejected.
36. Perusal of the judgment shows that Narinder Singh was missing on 29.7.2008 and his LRs after seven years filed a civil suit on 20.8.2015 which was decreed on 25.2.2016. In para No.10 of the judgment it  is mentioned that the complainants have been able to prove their case against the defendants to the effect that Narinder Singh is missing and has not been heard for the last more than 7 years.
37. So it is clear that court has found that the pleadings of the complainants are to be correct that Narinder Singh is missing since 29.7.2008.So when a person is missing then how can he revive his policy. It is very strange that deceased was being employee of OPs No.3to5 and OPs No.1&2 are subsidiary of State Bank of Patiala, so it was the bounden duty of the OPs to safeguard the interest of their employee. The law citied by the OPs is not helpful to the present case as the deceased was employee of OPs No.3to5 and OPs No.1&2 is company of subsidiary of State Bank Group. So the company and Bank are duty bound to look after the interest of their deceased employee.
38. As already stated above, OPs No.3to5 have written a letter,Ex.OP4 to SBI Life for sending the death claim of Rs.8,00,000/-.This letter was written when OPs 3 to 5 found the claim  of Narinder Singh is genuine otherwise there is no question for OPs No.3to5 to write a letter to OPs No.1&2 for the claim of Narinder Singh.
39. So due to our aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint directing OPs No.1&2 to pay the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as per letter,Ex.OP4 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date the claim was rejected i.e. 28.10.2016 till realization to the complainants in equal share.The OPs No.1&2 are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainants.   

Compliance of the order be made by the OPs No.1&2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:1.1.2021         

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President