Haryana

Karnal

CC/189/2019

Rajni - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Of Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Chauhan

11 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 189 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.08.04.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 11.08.2021

 

Rajni widow of Shri Vikas Kumar, resident of 127/16, Kashyap Chowk, Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal.

2. District Social Welfare Officer, Karnal.

3. Insurance, if any, which is to be disclosed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Chauhan counsel for complainant.

Shri Kapil Kumar, ADA, alongwith Shri Kanwar Pal, representative of OPs no.1 and 2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 20.11.2014, the husband of complainant namely Vikas Kumar met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and in this regard a FIR bearing no.411 dated 20.11.2014, was also registered with Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal. The post mortem of the husband of the complainant was conducted, vide PMR no.PG/04/14 dated 24.11.2014. The State of Haryana i.e. OP no.2 has launched a scheme under Rajiv Ghandhi Parivar Bima Yojna (RGPBY). Under the said policy, a person, who died in an accident and head of the family and resident of Haryana is entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs no.1 and 2. After the death of her husband, the complainant was ill and remained in nervousness for several months. Complainant is an illiterate lady and there is no other person in house and having no source of income. Being wife of deceased Vikas Kumar complainant lodged her claim under the policy. After verification of the documents, the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (C), Karnal, the official of OP no.2 forwarded the case of the complainant to OP no.1 for settlement of the claim but OPs did not pay the claim amount and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly rejected the claim of complainant on the ground that the claim was submitted after the nine months of the death Vikas Kumar. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; complaint is pre-mature as no claim has been lodged with the OPs and concealment of true and material facts from this Commission. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of complainant rejected due to reason that the complainant submitted the claim form under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna after nine months of the death of Vikas, because as per the policy the claimant must be applied the claim within six months. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, application Ex.C1, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C2, post mortem report Ex.C3, copy of FIR Ex.C4 and letter dated 26.04.2017 Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 23.10.2019 by suffering separate statement.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Satyawan Dhilorh District Social Welfare Officer Ex.OPW1/A and notification Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 06.04.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that on 20.11.2014, husband of complainant namely Vikas Kumar, unfortunately met with an accident, resultantly, he was died. In this regard, an FIR No.411 dated 20.11.2014 was also got registered in Police Station Madhuban. Post-mortem of the dead body was also got conducted on 24.11.2014. As per scheme of Government of Haryana namely Rajiv Gandhi Parivar Bima Yojna, a person who died in an accident and head of the family and resident of Haryana is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant being wife of deceased Vikas Kumar, lodged her claim with the OPs alongwith all the requisite documents but the OPs did not pay the claim amount to the complainant despite repeated requests and rejected the claim of complainant. Finding no other alternative, complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel of complainant placed reliance on case titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. 2017 CCC 626 (S.C.); Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. in civil applial no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.1.2012 (S.C.) and  Raj Narayan Vs. Amarjeet & Ors. CCC 628 2017.

7.             Per-contra, learned Assistant District Attorney argued that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as she did not apply her claim under the scheme namely Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna within the time limit of six months from the date of death. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy cost.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant applied for claim under the scheme launched by Government of Haryana namely Rajiv Gandhi Pariwar Bima Yojna and the same was rejected by the OPs vide letter Ex.C5, on the ground that complainant has applied for claim after nine months from the date of death of her husband.

9.             In order to prove its case, OPs placed on record notification dated 30.08.2011 Ex.P1, according to which “no claim will be entertained, if lodged after six months of the death or accident, as the case may be”, whereas on the other hand, complainant has not placed any documentary evidence on record that as to why she has not lodged the claim with the OPs within the time framed. Further, she has not even explained any justified reason that as to why she could not lodge the claim within time. Hence, the OPs has proved its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence whereas, on the other hand, complainant has failed to prove her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, complaint of the complainant has no force and deserve to be dismissed.

10.           The authorities relied upon by learned counsel of complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

11.           In view of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 11.08.2021

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)            

                     Member