Haryana

StateCommission

A/679/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEEMA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     679 of 2016

Date of Institution:    22.07.2016

Date of Decision :     19.10.2016

 

UHBVNL through Xen, ‘OP’ Division, UHBVNL, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Seema Devi wife of late Sh. Mukesh Kumar, resident of Village Kharman, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, SCO 357-358, Sector 35C, Chandigarh.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                               

Present:               Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Brigadier B.S. Taunque, Advocate for the respondent No.2

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

UHBVNL, Bahadurgarh-opposite party No.1 is in appeal against the order June 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short, ‘District Forum’). 

2.      Firstly, a few admitted facts: Mukesh Kumar, Assistant Lineman of UHBVNL died due to electrocution on June 25^th, 2014.  UHBVNL had insured its employees in the State of Haryana with United India Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) vide Group Personal Accident Policy (Exhibit R-11). The net premium paid by the UHBVNL to the Insurance Company was Rs.52,52,200/-. The sum insured per employee was Rs.5,00,000/-.  Smt. Seema Devi-complainant was not paid the sum insured on account of death of her husband Mukesh Kumar inspite of repeated requests made by her to the concerned authorities.  Smt. Seema Devi filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      District Forum allowed the complaint.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under         :-

          “5. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is directed that the respondents No.1 & 2 shall make the payment of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as sum insured under the policy in question which is Exhibit R-11 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of Mukesh Kumar insured i.e. June 25^th, 2014 till realization of final payment to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  It is made clear that as discussed above, the respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the complainant, therefore, it is made clear that the above ordered amount shall be paid by the respondents No.1 & 2 in equal shares to the complainant.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Learned counsel for the UHBVNL has stated that firstly District Forum held UHBVNL and the Insurance Company liable to pay the sum insured alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum jointly and severally and thereafter, it was stated that it would be apportioned amongst UHBVNL and the Insurance Company, which was wrong because it was the Insurance Company, who was to indemnify UHBVNL on account of death of its employees. 

5.      On the other hand, Sh. B.S. Tanque, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that since the UHBVNL informed the Insurance Company after a period of one year, so, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right.  He has also urged that amount as ordered by the District Forum has already been paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant, a fact which has not been refuted by learned counsel for the complainant.

6.      Submission of Sh. B.S. Taunque is not tenable in view of the fact that vide letter dated July 07^th, 2014 (Exhibit P-5), Xen ‘OP’ Division, UHBVN, Bahadurgarh had informed the Chief Accounts Officer and the Insurance Company with regard to the death of Mukesh Kumar but no action was taken by the Insurance Company.  Since the UHBVNL has purchased the insurance policy, it was the Insurance Company, who was to indemnify and not the UHBVNL.        

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is modified to the extent that United India Insurance Company Limited-opposite party was liable to make the payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, that is, the sum assured alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of death of Mukesh Kumar, that is, June 25^th, 2014 till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant, which the Insurance Company has already paid.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 19.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President