DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 166 of 2017
Date of Institution: 17.05.2017
Date of Decision : 11.06.2019
Gurpreet Singh aged about 26 years, son of Gurpiar Singh r/o Village Bargari, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bargari through its Branch Manager.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Kotkapura through its Branch Manager., Krishna Street No.3, Fauzi Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
....OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Madan La Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,
Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.2 lakhs on account
cc no. 166 of 2017
insurance claim for death of father of complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant and his father got opened a joint saving account in the bank of OP-1 and at that time. OP-2 gave accident insurance cover to his father under Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna. Ops issued policy no. 401440042168200000053 valid for the period from 1.06.2016 to 31.05.2017 and complainant was made nominee in said account and for insurance cover. It is further submitted that father of complainant died on 10.07.2016 due to electrocution and after his death, complainant approached Ops and as per their demand, submitted all the requisite documents to them and made request for giving him insurance claim on account of death of his father. At the time of receiving the documents, OPs assured to pass the claim within a short time, but did not make a single penny on account of insurance claim. He also sent written requests and e-mails to OPs but all in vain. Thereafter, complainant again contacted Ops and requested them to make payment of genuine insurance claim but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
cc no. 166 of 2017
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has unnecessarily dragged them in present litigation as insurance claim if any is to be paid by National Insurance Company. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant is not their consumer. Complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure of this Forum. However, on merits they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that whatever information complainant gave, they lodged the claim of complainant with OP-2 through online mode and through e-mails. Even information regarding complaint filed by complainant was also given by OP-1 to OP-2 through e-mail and it is on the part of Insurance Company to settle the claim of complainant. OP-1 also sent reminders to OP-2 regarding insurance claim of complainant. it is submitted by OP-1 that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
cc no. 166 of 2017
5 OP-2 also filed reply through counsel, wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that neither complainant nor OP-1 lodged any claim regarding death of father of complainant before them and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is premature and is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 have been wrongly impleaded by complainant as insurance claim sought by complainant is to be lodged with head office of Insurance Company and not with the Branch office. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and matter involved in present complaint is to be referred to Civil Court for proper adjudication. Till today, complainant has not furnished any document for processing the claim and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in present form. No cause of action arises against answering OP and even complainant is not their consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and all the other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint against them with costs.
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-19 and then, closed his evidence.
cc no. 166 of 2017
7 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harkewal Singh Bhatti Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence. ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamaljit Singh Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to OP/B and OP-2/C and then, closed the evidence.
8 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for OP-1 and OP-2 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.
9 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainants is that he and his father had a joint saving account in the bank of OP-1 and at the time of opening the account, OP-2 gave accident insurance cover to his father under Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna. Policy issued by OPs was valid from 1.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. During the subsistence of said policy, father of complainant died on 10.07.2016 due to electrocution and after his death, complainant approached Ops and submitted all the requisite documents to them and requested to pass his genuine insurance claim on account of death of his father, but they did not do anything needful. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several requests and issuance of e-mails to OPs, they have not redressed the grievance of complainant and did not make any payment of
cc no. 166 of 2017
insurance claim, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, plea taken by OP-1 that they duly sent the information given by complainant regarding death of his father and for processing his insurance claim to OP-2 through online mode and through e-mails and even they have also sent reminders to OP-1 to consider the claim sought by complainant regarding death of his father who was insured under Pradhan Mantri Suraksh Bima Yojna with OP-2 and there is no deficiency in service on their part as insurance claim filed by complainant is payable by Insurance Company only. On the other hand OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that complaint filed by complainant is premature as neither complainant nor OP-1 lodged any claim regarding death of his father before them. As per OP-2 claim is required to be lodged with Head Office of National Insurance Company, but complainant has not filed any claim with Head office of OP-2 either himself or through OP-1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and complaint filed by complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
10 To prove the pleadings of complainant, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-14 that is copy of Death Certificate issued by Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Punjab regarding death of Gurpiar Singh father of complainant. Ex C-15 copy of DDR No.15 dated 10.07.2016 further proves the grievance of complainant. Ex C-16 shows the proceedings
cc no. 166 of 2017
done under section 174 of Cr.P.C. that further prove the fact that death of said Gurpiar Singh occurred due to electrocution. Ex C-17 is copy of post mortem report given by Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot Punjab that clearly finds mention the fact that death of Gurpiar Singh/father of complainant occurred due to electrocution. Careful perusal of Ex C-18 copy of cover-note of bank passbook, clears the point that both complainant and his deceased father were having joint account with OP-1 bank. Ld counsel for complainant has stressed on document Ex C-2 Claim Acknowledgment Letter dated 25.07.2016 issued by OP-1 to complainant that clears the version of complainant and OP-1 that complainant gave due intimation regarding death of his father and for processing his claim to OP-1 and in turn, OP-1 forwarded the said intimation to OP-2. Thus, stand taken by OP-2 that neither complainant nor OP-1 has lodged any claim in respect of death of Gurpiar Singh father of complainant with them, has not legs to stand upon in the light of documents Ex C-2/OP-1/2. Ex C-3 to Ex C-5 are copies of letter and reminders issued by complainant to OP-1 and OP-1 to OP-2 for requesting them to clear the genuine insurance claim sought by complainant in respect of death of his father. It is inappropriate on the part of OP-2 to deny the claim of complainant on false and incorrect grounds. Complainant has produced cogent and vital documents to prove his case. Evidence produced by complainant is fully authentic and is beyond any doubt.
cc no. 166 of 2017
11 From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by parties respectively, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 in not clearing the genuine claim of complainant on false ground that complainant has not lodged his claim with them. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2. OP-2 is directed to make payment of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization on account of death of Gurpiar Singh who was insured under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna with them. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed as they have done their duty of lodging the claim of complainant with OP-2 and even it has no role in making payment of insurance claim. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 11.06.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
