DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB) <br /> <br /> C.C.No.61 of 26.2.2008<br /> Decided on :24.4.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.Poonam Rani W/o Mintu Singla S/o Raj Kumar Singla;<br /> 2.Naman Singla aged 7 years minor S/o Mintu Singla;<br /> 3.Mayna Singla aged 5 years minor S/o Mintu Singla, Both complainants No. 2 & 3 being minor through their mother Poonam Rani as natural guardian.<br /> 4.Raj Kumar S/o Kalu Ram (Father of deceased);<br /> 5.Sunit Devi W/o Raj Kumar (mother of deceased). All residents of House No. 260, Ward No. 5, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ..... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Maur Mandi Branch through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. B.S Brar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. M.L Garg, counsel for opposite party No.1<br /> Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No.2 <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant No. 1 is the widow, whereas complainants No. 2 & 3 are the sons of deceased Mintu Singla. Complainants No. 4 & 5 are his father and mother respectively. Deceased (Mintu Singla) was holding Cooperative Bank Insurance Plan Saving Bank A/c No. 3119 dated 20.9.2004 with opposite party No. 1. According to it, he was insured by opposite party No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 24.6.2007 at about 4.30 A.M, assured alongwith complainant no. 1 and children was coming in Van No. PB-032-3790 to Maur Mandi after attending marriage of his relative at Sangrur. This vehicle was registered in his name and was being driven by him. When the vehicle was near Ghuman Kalan, a truck was found coming from the opposite side. Due to dazzling lights of the truck, deceased lost control of the Van and it had struck against a tree. He received injuries on his mouth and leg. Some other internal injuries were there in his stomach. He was brought to Kiran Maternity Home, Maur Mandi by Sahara Club, Maur Mandi from where he was referred to Amar Hospital, Patiala. He was taken to Patiala in Ambulance of Civil Hospital, Maur by Tarsem Kumar and others and was admitted in Intensive Care Unit of Amar Hospital vide I.D No. 1106 where he breathed his last. On the request of the complainants, opposite party No. 1 had referred their case for insurance claim regarding the accidental death of Mintu Singla for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Requisite documents were also given. Opposite party No. 2 declined the claim for want of post mortem report. It is alleged that there is overwhelming evidence that the death of Mintu Singla was caused in an accident. DDR No. 38 dated 28.6.2007 was got registered in Police Station, Maur. They (complainants) assail the repudiation of the claim made by opposite party No. 2 on 24.10.2007 as illegal, null and void and void ab-initio as no post mortem report is necessary in such like cases. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainants seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to produce the entire record in the court; pay Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. the assured amount; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of complaint and Rs. 8,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that complainants have no cause of action against it as there is no relationship of consumer between them and that complaint is not maintainable. It admits that deceased Minto Singla was having Saving Bank A/c No. 3119 and he was insured with opposite party No. 2 under personal accident insurance policy. On receipt of documents from the complainants, claim was referred to opposite party No. 2 which has been decided on 24.10.2007. Intimation was given by it to the complainants. It denies its liability to pay the amount and the other averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply of the complaint has taken legal objections to the effect that complicated questions of law and facts are involved and as such, appropriate remedy, if any, is with the Civil Court; complaint has been filed to injure its repudiation; complainants have concealed material facts from this Forum as they have concealed the true cause of death of the deceased and did not get his post mortem examination conducted; they have no cause of action and locus-standi to file the complaint; they are not consumers; complaint is not maintainable and it is false and frivolous. There is no specific denial about the Saving Bank Account of the deceased with opposite party No. 1 and his insurance with it. DDR was not got recorded at the earliest and the report lodged regarding the accident on 28.6.2007 is a concocted one. It is for the complainants to prove that death had occurred due to accident. Cause of death has not been proved. Personal Accident Policy was for the period 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008. It admits that claim was lodged by the complainants and the claim file has been closed vide letter dated 24.10.2007. They do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.C.1) of complainant No.1, affidavit (Ex.C.7) of Sh. Tarsem Kumar, Active Member of Sahara Club, Maur Mandi, photocopy of DDR dated 28.6.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopy of certificate issued by Amar Hospital (Ex.C.3), photocopy of death certificate (Ex,C.4), photographs of damaged van (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6), photocopy of letter dated 24.10.2007 (Ex.C.8), photocopy of registration certificate (Ex.C.9) and photocopy of driving licence of Minti Kumar (Ex.C.10).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.4) of S/Sh. P.K. Jain, Senior Divisional Manager of opposite party No.1 & Gurtej Singh Sidhu, Branch Manager of opposite party No. 2 respectively, photocopy of policy (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex.R.3).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Mintu Singla was holding Saving Bank Account No. 3119 dated 20.9.2004 with opposite party No. 1 which had obtained Personal Accident Insurance Policy from opposite party No. 2 under which he was covered and sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-. Copy of the insurance policy is Ex.R.2. Claim has been repudiated by opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 24.10.2007 by holding that it is unable to consider the accidental death claim for want of post mortem report. Material question is as to whether the accidental death claim of deceased Mintu Singla by opposite party No. 2 has been rightly declined. <br /> 8. Contention of learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is that as per condition no. 2 of terms and conditions of Personal Accident Insurance Policy, copy of which is Ex.R.3, satisfactory proof is required to be furnished on matters upon which claim is based. He further argued that since it is a case of death, clause of death cannot be known for want of post mortem examination on dead body of Mintu Singla. He further argued that as per the certificate issued by Amar Hospital, Patiala, patient had got sudden cardiac arrest and as such, it cannot be said to be accidental death of deceased Mintu Singla. Apart from this, DDR was got recorded with the Police Station with delay i.e. on 28.6.2007, whereas date of death of Mr. Mintu Singla has been shown on 24.6.2007. <br /> 9. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the complainant argued that no-doubt, dead body of the deceased was not subjected to post mortem examination, but this itself is no ground on the basis of which claim could be thrown to the winds as his accidental death stands established from the other abundant evidence on the record. Mere some delay in reporting the matter to the police assumes no significance. <br /> 10. We have considered respective arguments. Policy purchased by opposite party No. 1 for its account holders including the deceased is a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. It covers death solely and directly caused by any accident. Complainants were required to prove that death of Mintu Singla was due to accident. In our view, there is overwhelming evidence to show that his death was accidental. Complainant No. 1 Smt. Poonam Rani and her children were accompanying the deceased. They were coming in Van after attending marriage at Sangrur. Deceased was driving the Van. Truck was found coming from the opposite side with dazzling lights on due to which deceased lost control and the Van had struck against a tree. Deceased had received injuries on his mouth and leg and internal injuries in his stomach. He was brought to Kiran Maternity Home, Maur Mandi by Sahara Club, Maur Mandi from where he was referred to Amar Hospital, Patiala where he had expired. Complainant No. 1 submitted her affidavit. It gets support from the affidavit Ex.C.7 of Sh. Tarsem Kumar, who is an Active Member of Sahara Club, Maur Mandi. Sh. Tarsem Kumar and four other workers on receiving information of the accident had reached the place of accident. They had found that Mintu Singla had suffered injuries on his mouth, leg and other internal injuries in his stomach. Sh. Tarsem Kumar in his affidavit Ex.C.7 has made it clear that they had taken him to Amar Hospital, Patiala where he had died on the same day due to injuries suffered by him in the accident. Ex.C.4 is the copy of the death certificate. Version in Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.7 gets support from the copy of the DDR Ex.C.2. Certificate given by the resident doctor of Amar Hospital also reveals that Mintu Singla was brought to his hospital on 24.6.2007 with history of road side accident blunt injury Abdomen. He was received in Intensive Care Unit and his blood pressure and pulse were unrecordable. He was put on life saving equipment and all of a sudden, he had got cardiac arrest. He could not be revived and declared dead. Photographs Ex.C.5 and Ex.C.6 show damaged Van in the accident. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that death may be due to cardiac arrest from which the deceased might have been suffering cannot be given any weight. It is not the case of any of the parties to this complaint that he was suffering from any heart problem prior to the day of accident or he had taken treatment for the same. Evidence proves that he received road side accidental injuries. When there is no positive evidence that he was suffering from any heart problem, we conclude that cardiac arrest was the complication of the injuries received by him in the accident which ultimately led to his death. Preliminary cause of death in this case was nothing else than the injuries in the accident as is evident from the evidence on the record. Hence we hold that accidental death of Mintu Singla is established. Declining the claim by opposite party No. 2 is arbitrary in view of the authorities National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amarjit Kaur and others-First Appeal no. 1314 of 2005 decided on 7.11.2005 by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab and Narendra Singh Bhasin Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd.-2005 CTJ-784 (CP)(SCDRC). Complainants were fully aware of his accidental death. There was no suspicion about the cause of death. This may be the reason for not getting the dead body subjected to post mortem examination. In support of it, reference can be made to the authority United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balla Mraddy Aruna-IV((2007)CPJ-389 (NC). In these circumstances, we are of the view that opposite party No. 2 is not right in repudiating the accidental death claim by holding that they are unable to consider it for want of post mortem examination. Act is a social benefit oriented legislation. Its provisions should, therefore, be construed in favour of the consumer has as been held in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta-AIR-1994 Supreme Court 787. Accident had taken place on 24.6.2007. Deceased breathed his last on the same day as is clear from the certificate given by the doctor. At the risk of repetition, it is again mentioned that complainant No. 1 was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident. In these circumstances, fact that DDR was got recorded on 28.6.2007 would not cast any cloud on the version of the complainants.<br /> 11. In view of our forgoing discussion, repudiation/declining of the claim by opposite party No.2 simply because dead body was not subjected to post mortem examination is not justified. It is set aside. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.<br /> 12. Question that now arises is as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants under the circumstances. Since repudiation/non-consideration of the claim stands set-aside, it is a case for direction to the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to complainants No. 1 to 3 and 5 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A w.e.f the date of non-consideration/repudiation i.e. 24.10.2007 till payment. Complainant No. 4 being not a class 1 heir of the deceased is not entitled to any relief. Complainants are also craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. <br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. <br /> 14. In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite party No.2 with costs 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. 1,00,000/- to complainants No. 1 to 3 and 5 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 24.10.2007 till payment. This amount on payment would be shared equally by complainants No. 1 to 3 and 5. Amount of the shares of minor complainants No. 2 & 3 would be deposited by opposite party No. 2 through its Divisional Manager through complainant No. 1, their guardian in some fixed deposit account in some nationalised bank. They would be entitled to receive this amount on attaining majority. No loan on this fixed deposit amount would be permissible. <br /> ( ii ) Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 15. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 24.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br />