DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 48 of 12-02-2008<br /> Decided on :16-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Karamjit Kaur Wd/o Gurpreet Singh R/o V. Shergarh, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sangat through its Manager. <br /> 2.Reliance General Insurance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Regional Office, SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.<br /> ... Opposite parties <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1.<br /> Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Husband of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh S/o Rana Singh R/o Shergarh, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda had opened Saving Bank Account No. 2227 with opposite party No. 1 on 20.8.2002. Opposite party No. 2 had floated a scheme that if any account holder keeps Rs. 1100/- every time in his/her account it would Insure that account holder for accidental benefits to the extent of Rs. 1.00 Lac. Since her husband was keeping more than Rs. 1100/- in his account, opposite party No. 1 had intimated that he was being insured with opposite party No. 2 with which it had insured similar placed account holders for accidental benefits. Complainant was declared nominee in the Insurance policy. On 24.4.07 Gurpreet Singh was electrocuted while he was checking the motor in the well. She felt perplexed. t the asking of the co-villagers, dead body was cremated on the same day without getting it subjected to post mortem examination. Intimation was given to the Police officials of Police Station, Raman. Affidavit was demanded by them which was subsequently given. Daily Diary Report was recorded by M.H.C. Kulwant Singh on 9.5.07. Village Panchayat verified the death of her husband on 24.4.07 vide Panchayatnama/resolution dated 8.6.07. Intimation of the death was given to opposite party No. 1 stating that he was electrocuted. Copy of the Daily Diary Report, Death Certificate and other relevant documents were also submitted to opposite party No. 1. Ultimately opposite party No. 1 sent letter No. 358 dated 31.10.07 to her vide which it was intimated that opposite party No. 2 has rejected the claim for want of post mortem report. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her claim amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of lodging the claim till payment and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and loss of physical health.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi against it as claim, if any, is to be decided or paid by opposite party No. 2; complainant is not consumer; complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it admits that husband of the complainant had Saving Bank A/c No. 2227 with it and it was opened on 20.8.02. He was covered under Personal Accident Insurance Policy No. 20-30-11-00010-06 of opposite party No. 2 subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It admits that the documents were received by it from the complainant and they were submitted to opposite party No. 2 for decision at the earliest. Legal notice was received which was replied. Intimation was given to the complainant vide letter No. 358 dated 31.10.07 that claim has been rejected by opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 26.10.07. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. Under the policy issued to the Bank risk of the account holder is covered if he dies due to accident. Only personal accident policy was issued to the Bank. In this case admittedly no post mortem report was submitted by the complainant. No FIR was lodged pertaining to the accidental death. In an accident, matter is reported to the police and post mortem is mandatory. Risk is not covered. Complainant could not produce the post mortem report as well as other evidence showing that her husband had died of accident on 24.4.07. Claim was rightly repudiated.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), affidavit of Sh. Labh Singh Sarpanch (Ex. C-2), copy of legal notice (Ex. C-3), postal receipt (Ex. C-4), reply to legal notice (Ex. C-5), letter dated 31.10.07 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of letter dated 26.10.07 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of DDR No. 5 dated 9.5.07 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of Panchyatnama (Ex. C-9), photocopy of Death Certificate of Gurpreet Singh (Ex. C-10), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of Identity Card (Ex. C-12).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 affidavit of Sh. Kaur Singh, Branch Manager (Ex. R-1) and on behalf of opposite party No. 2 affidavit of Sh. Satyam Kapur, Manager (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 1.<br /> 7. Admittedly policy was issued in favour of opposite party No.1 covering the risk of account holders of opposite party No. 1 including the deceased. If any one of them dies due to accidental death, opposite party No. 2 has to pay Rs. 1.00 Lac. Claim lodged by the complainant has been repudiated by opposite party No. 2 on the ground that dead body of her husband was not subjected to post mortem examination and that Daily Diary report was lodged with the police after a gap of 15 days from the date of his death.<br /> 8. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant argued that opposite parties have wrongly repudiated her insurance claim regarding death of Gurpreet Singh. There is abundant evidence to prove that death of Gurpreet Singh was accidental.<br /> 9. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehementally argued that policy purchased by opposite party No. 1 for its account holders including the deceased was Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. He further argued that complainant has failed to prove that death of Gurpreet Singh was accidental. Lodging of the police report immediately and conducting of the post mortem on the dead body were mandatory. This fact is evident from the copy Ex. C-11 of the pass book placed and proved on record by the complainant. Daily Diary Report, copy of which is Ex. C-8 was got recorded on 9.5.07 whereas accidental death of Gurpreet Singh is alleged to be of 24.4.07. In these circumstances, claim is not payable.<br /> 10. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.<br /> 11. There is no dispute about the fact that policy purchased by opposite party No. 1 for its account holders including deceased Gurpreet Singh is a Group Personal Accident Policy. It covers death solely and directly caused by any accident. As per copy of the pass book Ex. C-11, report to the police and post mortem on the dead body are necessary for getting the Insurance claim. Apart from this, death certificate is required. Complainant has placed on record copy of the Death Certificate Ex. C-10. Complainant was required to prove that death of Gurpreet Singh was due to accident. In our view there is overwhelming evidence to show that his death was accidental. Deceased was checking the electric motor. He was electrocuted and had died in the well itself. For this, there are affidavits of complainant Karamjit Kaur and Labh Singh, Sarpanch of village Shergarh which are Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-1 respectively. Labh Singh states that on 24.4.07 Gurpreet Singh was checking the motor and had died in the well due to electric shock. True that Daily Diary Report No. 5 was recorded in Police Station Raman on 9.5.07. In our view this itself is no ground to discard the version of the complainant about the accidental death of Gurpreet Singh. A perusal of the contents of the Daily Diary Report reveals that Gurpreet Singh was electrocuted on 24.4.07. Panchayat of Village Shergarh had passed resolution on 8.6.07 and copy of the same is Ex. C-9. As per Ex. C-9 Gurpreet Singh was setting right the motor in the well due to which he was electrocuted on 24.4.07. Even in the legal notice sent to opposite party No. 1 by the counsel for the complainant, it was intimated that Gurpreet Singh was electrocuted while he was setting right the electric motor installed in the well. Complainant is the legal heir of the deceased. Her plea that due to sudden death of Gurpreet Singh she was feeling bewildered and at the asking of co-villagers, dead body was cremated. There was no suspicion about the cause of death of Gurpreet Singh. This may be the reason of not getting the dead body subjected to autopsy. When evidence proves that death of Gurpreet Singh was accidental, opposite party No. 2 is not right in repudiating the claim merely on the ground that post mortem examination was not conducted on the dead body and Daily Diary Report was lodged after a gap of 15 days particularly when there is enough evidence that death of Gurpreet Singh was accidental. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Amarjit Kaur & Others, First Appeal No. 1314 of 2005 decided on 7.11.2005 in which it was held as under :-<br /> “...in this case a DDR was lodged in which it is mentioned that Baljit Singh had died of a snake bite. The duty of the relations is that to report the matter to the police (if at all required) and is upto the police authorities whether to record DDR or FIR. The Bob of the victim is to set the law in motion and he is not much concerned whether the police records an F.I.R. or DDR Similar view we have taken in Appeal No. 789 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anil Sehgal of Jalandhar City – decided on 13.7.2005. Apart from the above, there is a report of the sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur dated 5.12.2004 that Baljit Singh had died of Snake bite. Moreover, Smt. Amarjit Kaur, complainant and Nirmal Singh and Harjit Sigh had filed affidavits (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3) to the effect that Baljit Singh had died of snake bite. Even in the register of Birth & Death (Ex. C-6), the cause of death is mentioned as snake bite. Simply because the postmortem report was not forthcoming and only DDR was there, we do not find that the insurance company was right in repudiating the claim. It is well known that in any cases the parties concerned do not want postmortem to be done in case where there is no suspicion. According to the complainant, Baljit Singh had died of snake bite and the post mortem was not done. It may be for the reasons that the complainant and other relations felt that there was no doubt that Baljit Singh had died of snake bite...,”<br /> Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission Tamil Nadu in the latest pronouncement in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited and Another Vs. R. Thiru Murugan IV(2007) CPJ 56. To the same effect are the authorities Narendra Singh Bhasin Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2005 CTJ 784 (CP(SCDRC) and Unied India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balla Mardy IV (2007) CPJ 389 (NC).<br /> 12. In these circumstances, we are of the view that opposite party No. 2 was not right in repudiating the accidental death claim by holding that dead body was not subjected to post mortem examination and Daily Diary Report was got recorded after a gap of 15 days. Act is a social benefit oriented legislation. Its provisions should, therefore, be construed in favour of the consumer as has been held in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs.. M K Gupta AIR 1997 Supreme Court 787.<br /> 13. In view of our foregoing discussion and what has been held in the authorities referred to above, repudiation of the claim made by opposite party No. 2 through letter dated 26.10.07, copy of which is Ex. C-7 is set aside leading to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2. When it is so, complainant being legal heir and nominee of the deceased has got the locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint.<br /> 14. Question that now arises is as to what relief be accorded to the complainant under the circumstances. Since repudiation of the claim stands set aside, it is a case of direction to opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 1.00 Lac to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of repudiation i.e. 26.10.07 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above.<br /> 15. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 16. In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite party No. 2 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 is directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 1.00 Lac to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 26.10.07 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinde Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki'