BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 52 of 2011
Date of Institution : 1.3.2011
Date of Decision : 16.8.2016
Gurdev Chand son of Shri Gian Chand son of Shri Nihal Chand, resident of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- The Shahpur Begu P.A.C.S, Ltd. Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, now office at near Congress Bhawan BeguRoad, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Manager.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rgd, Office, 34, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110019, through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
- Laxmi Bai widow of Shri Gian Chand son of Shri Nihal Chand
- Kailash Rani 5. Reshma Rani Daughters of Shri Gian Chand son of Shri Nihal Chand, resident of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
..Proforma-respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.P.K.Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the opposite party no. 1.
Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
Sh. Suresh Mehta, Advocate for opposite parties no. 3 and 4.
ORDER
Late Sh. Gian Chand father of the complainant and proforma respondents no. 4 and 5 and husband of proforma respondent no. 3 owned and processed with agricultural land in villages Bajekan and Sikandarpur tehsil and distt. Sirsa. He had purchased 30 bags of IFFCO urea fertilizers vide cash memo no. 0184 dated 25.7.2009 for Rs. 7245/- and 40-40 bags of IFFCO DAP Urea vide cash memo No. 0189 dated 7.8.2009 for Rs. 28360/- from OP No. 1 and per the policy of the IFFCO, if any farmers purchase more than 25 bags of Urea DAP then he gets an insurance of Rs. 100000/- automatically. Thus late Sh. Gian Chand was also given insurance cover of Rs. 100000/- and the complainant was made as his nominee for the said policy. Unfortunately, on 16.12.09 said Sh. Gian Chand met with an accident and died on 25.12.09. The case was registered and FIR No. 210 dated 20.12.09 under Section 279, 337 and 304 A IPC was recorded in concerned police station. After his death, the complainant being his legal heir and nominee lodged his claim with Op No. 2, but no settlement has been made by op no. 2 despite issuance of legal notice. Hence the present complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing their separate replies. Op No. 1 has replied that he entered into an agreement with Op No. 2 to cover the risk of its customers against any injuries or accidental death of its customers with risk coverage of Rs. 4000/- per bag subject to the maximum Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium for such insurance is paid by him to op no. 2. The claim of the complainant was sent to the op no. 2 by him without any delay. Op no. 2 has replied that the complainant and proforma respondents have not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e. General condition no. 5. The complainant and the proforma respondents have not filed any claim within two months from the date of death and further even till date and hence they have breached the general condition of the policy. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. Proforma respondents no. 3 to 5 by filing their reply admitted the case of the complainant.
4. By way of evidence the complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1, copies of bills Ex. C2 and Ex. C3, death certificate Ex. C4, copy of FIR Ex. C5, insurance policy Ex. C6, postal receipt Ex. C6 and ExC7, copy of fertilizer sale registers Ex. C8and Ex. C9, copy of passbook Ex. C10, legal notice Ex. C11, post mortem report Ex. C12 and copy of mutation Ex. C13. Whereas opposite parties have produced affidavit of Sh. Abhey Kumar on behalf of Op No. 2 Ex. R1, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex. R2, affidavit on behalf of op no. 1 Ex. R3, copy of fertilizer sale registers Ex. C4 and Ex. C5.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the written arguments of the op no. 2.
6. In order to determine the present case, the initial question to be decided is whether the complainant or any of the proforma-respondents have complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and lodged their claim within the stipulated period of two months after the death of the insured deceased Gian Chand? To answer this question, firstly we have gone through the written reply of op no.1, who replied in para no.9 of its reply admitted that claim case of complainant was sent by him to the Op no.2 and op no.2 is responsible for not settling the case. Next question is whether the complainant lodged his claim within the prescribed period or not? To answer this question, there is a postal receipt of speed post dt. 22.2.2010 addressed to the Op no.2 and the same is on record as Ex.C7. In this way, it is proved on the record that the complainant had sent his papers to the op no.2 within the prescribed period of two months from the date of death. In case, complainant had not sent the complete papers required for settlement of the claim, then it was the duty of the Op no.2 to intimate him in this regard well in time, but there is no correspondence from the op side. In this case, the facts of purchase of fertilizers etc. from op no.1, death of insured Sh.Gian Chand in an accident on 25.12.2009 and insurance of the deceased have not been denied. In our view when all the things have been admitted and proved on the record, then plea of the op no.2 for not lodging the claim within the prescribed period of two months has no force. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that Ops are deficient and negligent for not settling the claim case of the complainant for such a long period of six years and now, in order to avoid their responsibility, they are taking false version. Thus, we accept the present complaint. Op no.2 is hereby directed to pay the sum insured i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 1.3.2011 till its realization. Op no.2 is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from today. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 16.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
