Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/613/2013

Darbara Singh S/o Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India5 - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Gupta

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 613  of  2013.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 22.8.2013.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 26.10.2015.

Darbara Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, aged about 57 years resident of village Bahadarpur Post Office Khizrabad Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhoodkalan, P.O. Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar.  
2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Govt. Polytechnic Branch, Ambala City.
3. The Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company ltd. Mumbai Divisional Office No.4, Mehta House, 3^rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai 400001.      

 

                                                                                                                                          … Opposite parties.

 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. B.S.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

              OP No.3 already ex-parte.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Daraba Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) Insurance Company i.e. OP No.3 be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest for personal accident as per insurance policy issued to Police Salary Package through OPs No.1 & 2 i.e. State Bank of India, Ambala City and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony etc. and Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant’s son Sh. Inderjeet Singh was selected as Constable in March 2012 in Haryana Police at Amaba City and had been undergoing police training at Police Line Jind Haryana since 2.4.2012. Sh. Inderjeet Singh since deceased was drawing his salary from State Bank of India, Polytechnic Branch, Ambala City and his saving fund account No. 20119878494. He was also having an ATM card. Copy of which is Annexure C-1.

3.                     The State Bank of India formulated a scheme named as Police Salary Package for the police personnel. The State Bank offered various facilities under the scheme (Annexure C-6) a personal accident insurance cover for Rs. 3,00,000/- was offered to the constable who would open their salary account with the SBI. Consequently all the police officials opened their salary account in the State Bank of India throughout Haryana as per direction of the Director General of Police Haryana (Annexure C-4). Sh. Inderjeet Siungh since deceased also opened his account with the State Bank of India Government Polytechnic Branch, Ambala City.

4.                     Unfortunately while undergoing training at Police Line Jind Sh. Inderjeet Singh (since deceased) came across an electric current wire and slipped on it as it was a rainy day and due to electric current he died. The postmortem was conducted by the Doctor of Civil Hospital, Jind. Copy of which is Annexure C-8. A DDR report under section 174 Cr.P.C was also prepared at Police Station, Civil Line, Jind. Copy of which is Annexure C-7.

5.                     A claim was lodged by the father of deceased Sh. Darbara Singh complainant with the State Bank of India Ambala City OP No.2 and the State Bank of India Ambala City sent all the requisite documents to the Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Mumbai i.e. OP No.3 vide their letter No. BOM/2012-13/22 dated 1.3.2013. So many reminders were also issued by the State Bank of India Ambala City to the OP No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Company, Mumbai for making the payment of claim under the Haryana Police Package Policy to the LRs of deceased Sh. Inderjeet Singh. Copy of which is Annexure C-10. But inspite of that reminders OP No.3 failed to make the payment. Hence this complaint.

6.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 SBI Branch Bhoodkalan, P.O. Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action without jurisdiction and on merit it has been specifically submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the deceased Sh. Inderjeet Singh died at Jind and was having his salary account with State Bank of India, Government Polytechnic Branch Ambala City. Hence no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, it has been stated that OP No.1 has no concern whatsoever with the matter involved in the complaint. Hence, complaint qua OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

7.                     OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action, no jurisdiction and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 as all the documents had already been forwarded to the OP No.3 for releasing the payment of claim amount to the complainant on account of death of Sh. Inderjeet Singh and on merit it has been admitted that deceased Inderjeet Singh who was employee of Haryana Police was having saving account bearing No. 20119878494 with their branch which was opened on 18.5.2012. It has been further admitted that on 10.10.2012 Smt. Jalvinder Kaur mother of Inderjit Singh approached the OP No.2 alongwith death certificate and postmortem report and told that Sh. Inderjeet Singh had died due to electric shock and after receiving the information OP No.2 had written a letter No. SL 111 dated 12.10.2012 ( Annexure R-1) to the Higher Authority of Bank i.e. Regional Manager at Panchkula with the request to settle the claim. On the instruction of Higher Authority, the OP No.2 sent all the papers and documents i.e. claim form, postmortem report, death certificate etc. to the local office of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala City vide their letter No. BM/2012-13/10 dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure R-2) and in response to that letter United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala City sent a letter dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure R-3) asking to the OP No.2 to provide some other documents. Thereafter, OP No.2 after receiving the documents form the mother of deceased Smt. Jalvinder Kaur, sent all the documents to OP No.3 at Head Office Mumbai vide their letter No. BM/2012-13/22 dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure R-4). When the OP No.3 has not settled the claim then OP No.2 sent various reminders to the OP No.3 copy of which are Annexures R-5 to R-8 and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No.2.

8.                     OP No.3 remained absent despite service and proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.7.2014.

9.                     During the pendency of the present complaint, counsel for the complainant Sh. B.S.Gupta Advocate made a statement recorded separately on 10.7.2014 that OP No.3 has already paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- sum insured after filing the present complaint and filed a copy of letter dated 13.9.2013 (Annexure R-9) and requested that as the OP No.3 has made a delay in making the sum insured. So, the interest and compensation may kindly be granted.

10.                   As the claim amount i.e. sum insured has been paid by the OP No.3 to the complainant and now the only question which remains with this Forum to decide is whether the complainant is entitled to get any interest on the delayed payment made by the OP No.3 and compensation.

11.                   Without deciding the case on merit, after hearing both the parties at length and after going through the contents of complaint and evidence produced on the file by both the parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is without jurisdiction as the deceased Inderjeet Singh had expired at Jind and postmortem was also conducted at Civil Hospital Jind. Further the deceased Inderjeet Singh was having his salary account with State Bank of India Polytechnic Branch Ambala City and as per the OP No.2, all the papers for settling the claim were also sent to the OP No.3. i.e. United India Insurance Company, Mumbai through local office of Branch Office United India Insurance Company Ambala City. Hence, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as per Section 11(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under:

(a)       the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or [ carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or

(b)       any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c )       the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

12.                   So, we are of the considered view that as per Section 11(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint of the complainant is beyond jurisdiction of this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 26.10.2015.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER